Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations

The goal of this page is to feature those books which are considered among the best of what Wikibooks has to offer, in an effort to raise standards in content development. Criteria for judging books, and rules about discussions, can be found at Wikibooks:Good books. When nominating a book for removal of featured book status, consider adding {{featured book removal}} to the book and notifying the primary or active contributors, as they may be able to address your concerns about the content.

Nominations for Addition

Transportation Economics

This is a graduate level Transportation Economics class text. I am the primary author. dml (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the book (it's impossible for me to understand a word of it given my age), I believe that the book could benefit from a navigational device such as {{navigate}}. This will make the book easier to navigate when it is read online. Also, I think the reference format is a little inconsistent. Otherwise, it looks fine. Good luck with the book! Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure about this. The book looks like it contains some original research. see Transportation Economics/Revenue/The Choice Between Taxes and Tolls. Recent Runes (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

REFLIST was added, it is citing research, not original research, thanks for noting it. dml (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's OK then, as the research is already published in reputable journals. Recent Runes (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Generally the book looks to have a high quality and level of completeness, and to be suitable for featured status. Personally, I like to see a print version of the whole book too, and perhaps the text in some of the economic charts could be bigger, but these need not be a bar to featured status I think. Recent Runes (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. I believe the book is good to go, except I think the book would still benefit from a navigational device. I also support making a print version as well as a PDF version. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am new and just finding my way here. Is this process all that exists so far, for reviewing a book? I am looking for something like the copyediting-upon-request and peer-review-upon-request services offered in Wikipedia. Are there equivalents here? About this transportation book, I notice some copyediting needed, e.g. in the Transportation Economics/Revenue/The Choice Between Taxes and Tolls section mentioned above. There is mention both of "this section" and "this paper", perhaps reflecting incomplete adaption of the chapter from the author's article that is the source. --Doncram (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment As far as I know, those kind of procedures aren't used here, though pages can be labelled as needing attention from an expert with {{attention}} or requests for help can be made on the WB:Reading room/Projects page. Probably the best option is to fix any obvious issues yourself or leave a message on the book's talk pages. It is quite common for books to be featured while they are still under construction, anyway. Recent Runes (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"this paper" -> "this section" 128.101.119.3 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment One difficulty I find is the that the navigation breaks down. Starting with the transition from Transportation Economics/Agents to the next page on Planning, several of the pages are shared with the Fundamentals of Transportation, which is also of high quality worked on by some of the same authors, etc. But it would be nice to find a way to repair this. Two possibilities that exist that I can think of

1. Fork (that is directly copying) the pages from Fundamentals of Transportation into Transportation Economics and continue adding navigation templates of the style already added.
2. Try the generally discouraged practice of placing the core material (excluding category templates, etc.) that is the same for both books into a template page that then get's transcluded into both books, with appropriate navigation & category templates included after the transclusion. One problem with this idea is that if someone decides to take that page of the book in a new direction they may be inadvertently changing the other book in some less than appropriate way.

Maybe someone else has a more clever idea then these two. Thenub314 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the navigation by making not-own pages linked to explicitly under ==Related Wikibooks == dml (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Biology

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Wikijunior:Particles

I know it's on Pi zero's to-do list, but being an extremely impatient person I decided to nominate it for FB just to get comments. :) I know it needs a good copyedit for grammar, tone and difficulty, but is there anything else that it needs to become an FB? Thanks, Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Suggestions for improvement added on Wikijunior_talk:Particles. Needs more images (for a wiki-Junior title); copy-ediit/fix science bloopers; very uneven level of completeness/sophistication. JamesCrook (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Julia and Mandelbrot Sets

It's complete, with high quality content and good prose. It's well illustrated and an interesting subject... QU ^TalkQu 12:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It does have nice illustrations. I can't speak to whether it covers the topic sufficiently or whether its contents are correct, unfortunately. Maybe one of our mathematics majors can take a look. – Adrignola talk 13:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This book could benefit from having some navigational aids added to it, but I don't think that's enough of an issue to keep it from featured status. It's a fine bit of work, and has my full support. --Jomegat (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Sure, more content and navigation could be added but this is a useful and informative book. The topic is also original which helps broaden the range of the featured books.--ЗAНИA ^talk 22:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose until minor issues fixed It is a good book, and very welcome, but it is premature to raise it to featured. These are mostly minor issues in that they are easily fixed, but I think they should be fixed before we proceed.

• It lacks navigation templates.
• As per front-page discussion, it needs to be copy edited by a native English speaker. This is mainly for some slight mis-uses of to/with/by, and for very occasional spelling errors e.g. 'ascrew' for 'askew'.
• Many pages do not have sub heads making walls-of-text that are off putting to all but the determined. In particular programming details are not set-off in any way from the general flow of the story - which would benefit both casual readers treating it as a coffee table book and hard core graphics programmers like me who want those details.
• Some LaTeX needs to be made displaystyle for clarity.
• Many/most pages have review status 'minimal'.
• Factual errors. W.R.Hamilton was Irish, not English. Gauss had already discovered Quaternions; Hamilton rediscovered them.

Glad to help with some of this as I would like to see this become featured. --JamesCrook (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The "review status of minimal" is irrelevant. Virtually no book has anything else - it's been reviewed to say there is no vandalism. The Featured Book criteria make no reference to FlaggedRevs IIRC QU ^TalkQu 21:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Alphabet and Wikijunior:Food Alphabet

I wish to nominate both Wikijunior:Alphabet and Wikijunior:Food Alphabet for Featured book status. Both of these books are as Complete and well formatted as Wikijunior:Animal Alphabet, which is already a featured book. Empire3131 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I have made a few small changes. Simple idea with nice pictures. I am a little surprised at 'F is for Chips' and 'Z is for Courgette'. No real problem though with being Americocentric. 'G is for Gate' is the picture I would most like to change since the castle behind the gate is about as prominent as the gate. These two books do do what they say they set out to do. It would be kind of fun to add some alternative pictures for people who don't click on the alphabet in sequence. For example if on the 'C is for Cat' page you click on the 'T' you get a Tiger instead of a Turtle, a Puma instead of a Pig, a Jaguar instead of Jam. However that kind of 'Easter Egg' hidden feature is something we can add later if we want to. --JamesCrook (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment The featured Wikijunior:Animal Alphabet has upper case and lower case versions of the relevant letter on the photo image. These two new books do not. I don't think it is necessary. If anything it is better not to. It makes it easier to add new better pictures later if we find some. If we want to we could put big versions of the letters beside the image using a large font. I don't think that is needed either. It is enough to teach capital letters. --JamesCrook (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I thought the Alphabet book was already a featured book, or maybe I confused it with Animal Alphabet. Anyway, these are 2 more simple but useful books which fit into the world of Wikijunior very nicely.--ЗAНИA ^talk 14:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, nice projects from Wikijunior. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Shapes

This book is very complete and well formatted. It is a book to teach kids different shapes, including 3D shapes and the different types of triangles. Empire3131 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose strongly. The sign for 'Hills Department Store' may be oval shaped, but it is not egg shaped. The 'kit-kat' picture illustrating four equal angles shows four equal rectangles - confusing unless you already know what a rectangle is and what 'equal angles' are. The 'four sided' pyramid shown has six edges. The example scalene triangle is too close to being isosceles. Do the funny markings on it actually help? Isn't using a fractal to illustrate 'decagon' a bit misleading? As well as details of execution and accuracy, I also have a problem with the overall concept of the book, and maybe that's where my real problems with it lie. I'll comment about that in the discussion page. --JamesCrook (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose the book's featured status due to its confusing organisation. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese History

This is a book on Japanese History, nearing completion, which I would like to nominate to be a featured book. Rrgreen (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the person who is (alone so far) putting the book on Japanese history together. I certainly hope that this will be considered a worthwhile project, but I do have to note that it is far from complete. I have resumed work after a lapse and am just now finishing up the section on the Middle Heian period, which will bring it up to the death of Fujiwara Michinaga. That leaves about 1000 years of Japanese history to go, a time during which the amount of surviving raw materials for history writing increased steadily. And, I have left gaps, topics I have skipped over at least temporarily. I have included nothing about the history of art or literature or the history of Buddhist and Shinto institutions. In the period I am just now working on there appear for the first time materials that would permit writing about domestic architecture, food, clothing and similar topics and this sort of thing becomes abundant for later periods. The main reason that I selected Wikibooks as the venue for this project is that it opened the possibility of a collaborative effort in which other people would take up topics I have neglected or offer alternative takes on topics I have addressed where they think that I am wrong about them. By the time the text advances to the point where there is some 500 years to go to reach the present I believe that the total amount of information available would utterly overwhelm the ability of just one person to handle it all. If this is to become a really comprehensive history of Japan it will be necessary for other people to pitch in.--David L Davis (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have published much on the chapters on the history of Japan after the Middle Heian Period and these are now quite complete. I do not think this needs to be a completely comprehensive history but rather to educate people on the history of Japan when they have never considered learning about it.Rrgreen (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is great work! This text provides a lot of information about Japanese History, and is well deserving of the Featured Book status if we are speaking of content alone. I think that the chapters and sections could use more photos, specifically the Asuka Period, which is amazingly lengthy. Additionally, many of the earlier period chapters need to be broken down into smaller sections for better organization and easier reading. I look forward to reading it further, and re-examining my feelings on its status as a potential featured book. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

World History

It's complete, high quality... everything I look for in a book. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - this book is far from complete. It looks like a complete book when you look at the contents, but many chapters are just section headers. According to the table of contents, everything from the Three Kingdoms period to the Southern Song Dynasty are ignored - in other words, the Three Kingdoms Period, Western and Southern Jin Dynasties, the Northern and Souther Dynasties, the Sui Dynasty, the Tang Dynasty and the two Song Dynasties will never be included in this book - and this includes China's best emperor, Emperor Taizong of Tang. It also lacks navigational devises and the format is inconsistent. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 11:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I suppose this book is intended to meet the requirements of the official specification at AP World History Course Description. This seems not to require coverage of the Southern Song, Jin or Sui Dynasties or Emperor Taizong. Even so, I think that the book needs better cross-referencing to the specification before becoming featured. The course description groups the material into the following periods:

• c. 8000 b.c.e.–600 c.e. 6 Weeks (19–20%)
• 600 c.e.–1450 7 Weeks (22%)
• 1450–1750 6 weeks (19–20%)
• 1750–1914 6 Weeks (19–20%)
• 1914–Present 6 Weeks (19–20%)

The structure of the book looks unrelated to this periodisation, which makes me suspect that it has diverged significantly from the Advanced Placement syllabus. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Not yet complete and many of the pages just seem full of information with no attempt to make it easier to read.--ЗAНИA ^talk 11:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Health

I am nominating the Sexual Health wikibook for inclusion as a Featured Book to gauge the community's feelings on the content and design of the book. I recognize that the book may not be truly ready for FB status, but I hope that this nomination will bring attention to the book, and constructive edits or recommendations. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Using Wikibooks

If it would not be too self-promotional for this project to Feature, Using Wikibooks appears to be of high quality, and meets the criteria as far as I can tell. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm not exactly an unbiased voter on this one, but I really do think this book is one of the best-constructed we have here. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm happy with the work I did on Using Wikibooks/Subjects, Categories, and Classifications, but I'm concerned that some pages in the book may be getting outdated. – Adrignola discuss 12:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment could do with some page navigation being added. QU ^TalkQu 19:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, even the one that is there (Template:Using Wikibooks/Page) should be removed because the job is already guaranteed by the slash convention. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think it's worthy of that honor, learned a few things myself when I looked over it. I agree with QU though, it definitley needs page navigation. --JamesNZ (discuss • contribs) 04:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Certainly a fine book. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Structural Biochemistry

In the past 4 years, my students of Structural Biochemistry at UC San Diego have been writing the wikibook. Without being perfect, it has reached a point in coverage, depth and quality that I feel confident that a student taking the course can do as well in the class consulting the wikibook, instead of purchasing an expensive book. We'll continue working on it. I believe that people interested in the field might find it useful too. Thank you, Hector Viadiu.

Support What a monumental book! It could use some navigation, but it sure appears to cover the subject in depth. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree. The subject matter goes over my head in parts but this is clearly a pretty outstanding book and it is truly collaborative which is exactly the kind of Featured Book we need to promote on Wikibooks.--ЗAНИA ^talk 10:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not quite ready yet. Needs all pages checked and flagged and the typos and formating errors removed. I looked at just two pages at random. The first had several spelling mistakes and the second had a messed up piece of Wiki format that meant the section heading was displaying incorrectly. I'm fine with the content, but it needs to be tidier to be truly featured quality. Structural_Biochemistry/Organic_Chemistry is a good example page - some of the images are too big, there are bare URLs with no explanation pointing to Wikipedia, a reference section right in the middle of the page, etc. Someone basically needs to copyedit it. QU ^TalkQu 12:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And it also needs someone to look at the image usage, and the text related to images. Many of the images are getting deleted from Commons resulting in text that refers to an image that is no longer there. QU ^TalkQu 08:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support We fixed formatting problems. Please, take a look.

Comment Some of it, by no means all. Take this page - a missing image, not categorised, no reference section / reflist. As I said, it's got the content but every page needs reviewing because the errors in structure are significant QU ^TalkQu 08:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sensory Systems

This book has been developed over the last few years, accompanying the course "Computer Simulations of Sensory Systems" at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich (ETH Zurich). It now covers the physiology of all human sensory systems, as well as introductions to their computer simulations.