From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Nominate a book Seen a wikibook you like? Click this link to nominate it as a featured book.	Related Pages
	Book List	Nominations	Criteria	Templates

The goal of this page is to help encourage content development in Wikibooks, and to feature those books which are considered among the best of what has been written in an effort to raise standards.

Criteria for judging a book, and rules about voting can be found at Wikibooks:Good books.

[edit] Nominations for Removal

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Radiation Oncology

This book is extensively sourced, is organized an written in a way that makes sense for the audience. While the book is still undergoing expansion, it is already very large (it has a deep hierarchical structure, so there is even more content than the front page would otherwise lead you to believe). For example, there are 3 redlinks in Supportive care, and there is still planned expansion in Other Topics. I believe it is complete enough to teach from currently. Navigation is perhaps not perfect though.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I'm a bit biased of course, but a lot of work has gone into this book, and it has grown beyond our expectations becoming a valuable resource. I feel it meets all of the criteria and is a worthy nomination. — Brim (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support as per nom. The authors have clearly put a lot of work into this book, it should be recognized :) Thereen (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Jomegat (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't understand a lot of what is written in this book so it's obviously directed towards those who are very familiar with the topic but it is well written, sources are indicated and the layout is clear although it needs the work of someone to make it a little more attractive. --Xania ^talk 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The content (the difficult bit) looks fantastic. However, I don't think there's much that's more daunting than a massive contents page with just reams and reams of links. If someone can do a little to make the contents page a little more inviting and welcoming, I'd be more than happy to support. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the reasons we didn't try to "beautify" the page is that it is functional; that is, it's easy to go right to the given section without a lot of clicking through hierarchy. If anyone has a nice format in mind, which nevertheless remains direct, I would be happy to take a look. Tdvorak (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps something similar to this? Unfortunately there are so many pages to link up it may still be too long.Thereen (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I took a look at the Featured books dealing with Natural Sciences, and for all of them the main page is pretty much a list of links, some shorter, some longer. Admittedly, our links far exceeds the length of the average main page. I do agree that it could use some streamlining and will work on it as I have time. Web designer/layout artist I am not. Tdvorak (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I have streamlined the Main Page using the template from Featured Books. Hope this works :) Tdvorak (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm glad to see there's still the more utilitarian TOC, but the main one looks good now!  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I think the full-link page (now TOC) is still helpful, but the Main Page is more representative now. Since I started the reorganization, I am going to work on that one as well, when I have the energy :) Thanks for fixing all the redirects in the book; I knew some were there but didn't have a chance to deal with them yet. Tdvorak (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support per nom. A very Good Book. Webaware ^talk 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support per nom. This book is a wonderful clinical resource and is used often within my department. Djma12 (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Nicely written, although I could spot some places where the formatting might do well to improve, specifically on the cover page. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Enough votes, no sense waiting any longer because this really is a good book. This is now featured. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zine making

I have recently come across this book, and I believe it deserves to be featured. Although it is short, I think it satisfies all of the necessary criteria. If you disagree, please state specific reasons so I may attempt to improve the text -Thereen (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support It does what it says on the tin! It's illustrated and informative. It's not long but there's no real need for it to be long. Good book. --ЗAНИA ^talk 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - The content covers what it needs to and no more - as it should. Formatting is ok, but I have issues with the images on Zine making/Putting pages together, but if there's nothing better, then so be it. I'll take a look at Commons shortly.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Mike - I've updated the images with neater-looking ones --Mcld (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support It's nice to be able to read an entire book in 30 minutes. If you like, I invite you (Thereen or Mcld) to take a look at my Bookbinding chapter. It has a few photos and some info on (what else?) binding books. Feel free (in a GFDL sense) to incorporate anything (or nothing) from there that you like. --Jomegat (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - short and sweet, this is a Good Book. Webaware ^talk 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose For such a short book, I really feel like it needs more. The content might be good enough, but I would like to see more illustrations, more eye-catching formatting, etc. "Short" isn't a bad thing, but "short and uninspired" is. I'll see if I can do anything for it today, but I'm voting oppose till it is improved. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I've done some work adding a lot of images to this book. I think the end result is much nicer then the older spartan form it had. Plus, These edits don't appear to have really effected the length of this book too much. So, if short was the intention, that hasn't been changed. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] x86 Disassembly

This book was formerly known as Reverse Engineering, a book that I started in September 2005 (one of the first I ever created). The while it's core was in good condition, the scope of Reverse Engineering was far too large and sprawling to ever become anything besides a dumping ground for loosly-related materials. So, earlier this year I broke it up into smaller books with better focus, the best of which is x86 Disassembly. This book is in good condition, as far as my estimate goes. It's core material is well covered, explained and demonstrated. This book is in a condition now where it could be used at least as an introduction to the subject in a real classroom. Today I added the final piece to the puzzle by creating a PDF version for it (150+ pages long). I think that this book is worthy of being a featured book here, and I would like to hear what other people have to say about it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I like it, well-presented, illustrated, simple but not patronising language, detailed but not sleep inducing. This is a good book. --ЗAНИA ^talk 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Support The book is in some categories which do not exist. Would you please either re-categorize or create them? Good use of {{TextBox}}, and seemingly good organization. Also it's good to see that the scope got adjusted here when Reverse Engineering became bloated - shows evidence of careful thought & planning, which is shown throughout the rest of the book's structure.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, I've created all those categories. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Nice book. -withinfocus 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support-Excellent book(Red4tribe (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Dutch Empire

I don't know if its good enough to be featured...but tell me what you think about it. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Comment I think this book could be featured soon, but it needs a little cleanup first. I went through the first couple of chapters and corrected several spelling errors, and I might continue down that path some more (we'll see). The book could also use some navigation, and it might be a good idea to at least outline the Dutch Culture During the Golden Age chapter so it's not a red link. In short, I think this one's almost ready. --Jomegat (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm reading a book on the culture now, so I figure after I read it I'd start writing the article, but it should be outlined for now. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC))