Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations/Archives/Archive 1

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Demystifying Depression

This book is dangerously inaccurate and badly sourced. As discussed on its talk page, the majority of the book is written by one person (Name of Feather) who has failed to show any sort of accreditation or qualification. Their sources are terrible and invalid, and the pseudo-scientific ramblings within the book barely align with that information given by the low-quality, unspecific sources he has. There is no evidence that this guy has any idea what he's talking about.

This would normally not be much of an issue. However, the book is on a serious subject, and the front page previously was listing it as a Completed book. This is bad because

  1. The wikibooks community should not portray this as a standard of excellence for books.
  2. We should not give the impression that the wikibooks community portrays this as a standard of excellence for books.
  3. The wikibooks community should not portray this as a legitimate guide to dealing with depression - such a thing is dangerous.
  4. We should not give the impression that wikibooks, or indeed the Wikimedia foundation, portrays this as a legitimate guide to dealing with one's depression - imagine the liability issues or the field day a muckraker could have with this.

I'm concerned with a depressed person trying to use this book to solve their problems, as well as image. I think the subject is serious enough, and that enough other people other than me have expressed their worry as to the book's accuracy and value that it's worth taking off the front page. I am going to take it off the front page for now, clean slate. If anyone wants to contend my grievances against the book, or argue that it's important and complete enough to be returned to the front page, please state so here. -Monktalk 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This book has already been removed from this list. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook

I'm nominating this book merely as an example of a very high quality Wikibook that deserves to be in the rotation of featured Wikibooks. This should be a no-brainer here, and I intend to make it the first featured book in the series. --Rob Horning 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, agreed this is a very useful and quality book in its current state and I think it satisfies all the requirements. I think we can make an exception on the naming convention for this one :). Mattb112885 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, this is one of our better books. -- Jim Thomas 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotechnology

This is a good, well-developed book. According to the main page, it has previously been book of the month, but it isn't listed on the featured books page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one, it seems like it's very well defined what should go there, most of it (except for sections 1 and part of 2) is links to wikipedia articles, the information contained within those seems to be very comprehensive but does it matter whether it's contained within the actual book or not (if it would basically be a rehash of the same material anyways)? If it is judged that this is acceptable then I support but for now I remain neutral, to hear what people have to say about this. Mattb112885 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your point here, but this book was previously nominated as BOTM, and it should likely have a place among the other books who had gained that distinction. On the flipside, this could be our opportunity to go back and review the books currently listed as BOTM winners, and decide if they all still merit a place of honor on that page. It might also be worth considering, with the demise of the BOTM program, if we want to include that section on the page at all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that we probably should just lose the BOTM category and stick with the "good books" and maybe another (pretty good but not there yet) category similar to Wikipedia's "Good articles" wikiproject. I'm sure many of the BOTM books would qualify for the good books criteria anyways (depending on how stringently we follow them of course). But for now you're right, if it was originally voted as a BOTM we should distinguish it as such, at least for now, so I'll say I support this. Mattb112885 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with losing BOTM. A group of people could try checking the BOTM books to see if any qualify as good books and keep those that do, for the circulation of featured books to display on the main page. --darklama 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I added this one to the BOTM list, because it was an old BOTM winner. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Added - This book is now a part of the rotation of Wikibooks that are featured on the Main Page. --Rob Horning 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blender 3D: Noob to Pro

I'd like to nominate this as, though it is not complete, it is a very good resource and I think it's usable in its current state. It doesn't seem to violate any current good book criteria. Seems to be well organized for growth too. Mattb112885 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - This is one I have recommended to others. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Strongly - While not nearly complete, there is enough meat that this has been forked and moved to the main Blender site, and does have at least "semi-official" support from the Blender Foundation. And this book does have some considerable depth. Also a previous "Book of the Month" winner. --Rob Horning 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I have been impressed with the quality of this book for some time. Are there any currently active contributors to this book? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's under active development. I see it a lot in RC. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support --Remi 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm clearly not cut out for graphic design, having tried to go through it and failed. However, I can see that it's well-written and growing. Keep it up. Regards, Celestianpower 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done This book is currently on the main page, I'll add it to the list of featured books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be handy if one of the editors of this book actually explained what the hell Blender is... Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually just one book in a series of books about blender, some of the other books do a better job of explaining what the software is. The whole list is at Blender 3D. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Nearly complete book and already a "Book of the Month" winner. Certainly deserves to have some attention on the front page. --Rob Horning 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Agree this is a good book, I was impressed when I first came here looking at that one, and still am Mattb112885 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Yup. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. It's a good book with good coverage. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Agree. Xania talk 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done It's already on the main page as we speak, i'll list it at featured books, and I've already posted a {{goodbook}} advertisement for the book on it's bookshelf. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Info: This book was already in the featured books list, so i don't have to do anything. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijunior Animal Alphabet

An alphabet primer with pictures of animals for pre-readers. --xixtas talk 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Nice pictures but I knew most of this. No, really, I like it. I could imagine some 3 year old getting pleasure from clicking the letters. What about optional sounds? RobinH 10:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Colorful, bold, simple. Excellent. The only think I am unsure of is the letter U (I've never even heard of a uakari!). -withinfocus 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - A riveting psychological thriller that will have you strapped to your seat for hours on end. But seriously, this is a good book for kids, and something that we (especially the wikijunior people) should be very proud of. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Fabulous. I totally agree with the above, and RobinH's suggestion would be the pièce de résistance. Regards, Celestianpower 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support One of the finest Wikibooks there is yet one of the simplest too. Xania talk 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done I see no reason to wait any longer with this book, this is something to be proud of and we should paste it all over the main page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Sociology

A remarkably complete book RobinH 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Mamma mia! That's one big book. Xania talk 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Very impressive. Mattb112885 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A good book that Wikibooks can be proud of. --xixtas talk 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I see a little over reliance on wikipedia articles, but that doesnt really detract from the great content this book has. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Seems like a good idea to display academic books. --Remi 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done 5 enthusiastic votes plus the nomination, no reason to wait any longer. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French

C'est magnifique! RobinH 11:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Support non merde! C'est bon! Xania talk 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Je suis d'accord. C'est super : complet et joli. Si je voulais apprendre français, c'est ça que j'utiliserais. Meilleures salutations, Celestianpower 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I don't speak any french. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - That sounds nice.... --Remi 04:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Impressionant -- Kowey 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. 5 enthusiastic votes, plus the nomination, are plenty for me. I'll list it and prepare a template. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

Herbythyme recommended that I nominate it here. I've been working on it for some time, and have completely reworked and rewritten the lessons, so that they follow on chronologically, and introduce concepts slowly, along with vocabulary. It now feels coherent, as if one could actually use it to learn. Kindest regards, Celestianpower 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - very well worked and organised book indeed --Herby talk thyme 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Support agreed, this is a very good book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, Impressive. Mattb112885 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I like this book's layout and it's very conducive to learning the language. Could always use more content, but the "textbook" part of it is nicely done. -withinfocus 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I can't fault this book and it's given me some ideas for future improvement of the Polish book and for development of my future English FCE book. Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done I dont think there is any reason to wait on this, 5 enthusiastic votes are plenty in my opinion, and this certainly doesnt carry the gravity of VfD. I'll list the book and prepare a template for it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Biology

Oppose Many pages are just bulleted lists, and lack significant amount of prose or instruction. Some good outlines, some good ideas, and some good images, however. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - agree with Whiteknight, also found the navigation confusing. Webaware talk 06:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Should be entitled "Short revision notes for general biology", I would then support it. RobinH 08:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Packing & Moving Household Goods

Oppose - many of the pages should be consolidated - short is fine, but one-line pages? - and there's something odd about the categorisation of pages. So many pages, navigation would be useful too. Lots of good information, but IMHO not a "good book". Webaware talk 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - if you read it thro it is actually written "courtesy of a website" and surprise surprise that website has a few links in it --Herby talk thyme 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Another "checklist book". These checklists should all be renamed. If they were called "Checklist for ..... " they would be acceptable. Sponsored books on Wikibooks should contain no reference to the sponsor. RobinH 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing

Covers a fairly wide range of topics related to the subject Markets 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral I don't feel I know enough about the topic to judge this book's coverage of the subject matter but the book itself looks, at least to me, to be a good start. A major thing that I feel is missing from this is an example, to show people maybe how to go about market research (i.e. what sources of information could you use to research the market? Is a certain source better than others? If you want to do a poll, how would you go about doing so without creating bias?), develop a plan (how do you determine market size? What types of tools could you use to evaluate?), and so forth. The order of the steps seems pretty weird to me as well (I'd think you'd do research before developing the product, for example, but again I haven't studied the subject so I'm not sure). But overall, I'd say it's good so far, and it could certainly become a FB sometime in the future.. Mattb112885 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose There are alot of formatting issues that I can see in this book, specifically the pre-formatted page navigation that spills past the page, and the over-reliance on bulleted and numbered lists. Good potential here, though, and when the formatting is fixed it should be renominated. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Again the formatting isn't important to me. I like the topic and the book is interesting but it would be nice to see a few sources for some of the statements in this book. Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The book should be called "Notes on marketing". I would support if that change were implemented. It is also missing the chinese proverb: "Man without smiling face should not run shop". RobinH 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian

Another language book which is mostly complete. Xania talk 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The grammar section looks great, but with 4 short lessons, I certainly wouldn't call it "mostly complete". It's a good start though, thus my not opposing. Regards, Celestianpower 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment But a language text book shouldn't exist to teach the reader from the basics to the advanced stages. Such a scope is too great and conventional text books usually focus on one particular level such as beginner, intermediate, advanced, etc. But yes there should be more than 4 lessons. Xania talk 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes, that's right. But currently, it doesn't focus on any level: it doesn't give lessons at all (other than those 4). It's no more than a grammar guide in its current state, unless I'm missing something. Regards, Celestianpower 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I would tend to agree, this book looks nice but it is severely lacking in content and isn't particularly usable to teach the language to a person with no background knowledge, like myself. On a side note there appears to be some kind of mad rush to nominate featured books and based on some of the nominations I worry that our standard of quality isn't particularly high here. We want to put books on the front page that we can be proud of as a community, and that we would like future books to aspire to. A book that is "not that bad" or has "lots of content" doesn't necessarily fit the bill. In terms of advertising it does pay for us to be a little picky and really try to put our best foot forward. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Too thin. RobinH 08:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic

A small but very interesting book. Xania talk 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Interesting but a bit thin at the moment. RobinH 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Only 6 pages in the TOC, and one of those links is red. The pages that do exist are not complete and are frequently very brief. There is no inter-page navigation. There are only two images, when most of the material really could benefit from illustration, or even video files (which i admit is still a rarity for our books). "interesting" is not the same as "good". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's fine. I didn't like your previous comment though about "the rush to nominate featured books". I am nominating books which I have found useful. A good book does not need to be 50 pages long. A good book does not need to be complete (that's the good thing about "Internet books"). If we only chose the really big and prettily formatted books then we'd probably end up with a host of computer-related books (as the authors of these books are better at formatting wiki text) which wouldn't appeal to all of our potential readers. We should have a wide range of books as featured books. Xania talk 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to offend you with that comment, and i humbly apologize if i did. I really and sincerely feel that featuring 10 fantastic books will be better for everybody then featuring 100 books that are just alright. Also, i'm not judging on completeness because the one book that i've nominated so far was very far from complete (there are almost 20 new chapters I need to start writing!). Unlike the BOTM, books can be nominated at any time, and we can nominate as many books in a week or a month as we want. If a book isn't ready today, we can fix it and make it ready tomorrow, or even next week. We have alot of flexibility now with the new "featured book" system, and we really don't need to be in any hurry. As to the issue with book diversity, we have more featured books right now about made-up languages then we do about programming languages. There is nothing wrong with showing a little of our strength, even if it is in an unpopular subject. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've commented on the talk page, I think it'd be better to discuss this on the talk page though so as not to clutter the votes.
Oppose - desperately in need of more illustrations, and perhaps some charts a la UML sequence diagrams. Webaware talk 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartending

Oppose many of the pages are just stubs, could also benefit from more images, more recipes, etc. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - confusing, inaccurate, and incomplete. Not a "good book". Webaware talk 05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support It has a fair list of cocktails and treats bartending as a profession. RobinH 08:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Another good book and the amount of work put into it clearly shows. Xania talk 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - collection of bits some of which aren't bad - yes. "Good book" - no --Herby talk thyme 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go

Concieved over 4000 years ago, Go is a wonderful game of strategy that is easy to learn and nearly impossible to master. This wikibook will give you instructions on how to play, what you need to play and everything else you may need to know about what this game entails. visit the Gowikibook today and find out more.

Comment While I think the book is on the right track, I don't think it is yet complete enough to be considered a featured book. Mattb112885 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Has many stub pages and could use further content development. -withinfocus 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Stub pages, and there are some very prominent red links on the TOC that makes me think there is still alot of content to be added before this is useful. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Great book. I don't think a book needs to be finished to be a featured book. The great thing aboiut online publishing is that some books will never be finished - Wikipedia of course will never be finished either. Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is still somewhat up in the air how complete something needs to be in order to qualify... do you feel that this would be complete enough to become a good go player? I would consider supporting it if for example all the "beginner" tactics had something on them (as I feel that they would be the focus of most people who would seek out the book, I would presume). Mattb112885 (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment So near. I am in favour of nearly complete books being included but Beginner's section 4 at least should be completed. RobinH 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Not quite ready; hopefully one day -- Kowey 10:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationships

This one has a lot of issues with it, as far as POV especially, I don't know if they're un-fixable or not, I wouldn't recommend deleting it but I don't think it should be one of our featured books (I was quite surprised to see it on there...) Mattb112885 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove Considering the number of times it's been nominated for deletion (or had parts of it nominated for deletion) I would agree that maybe it isn't some of our finest work. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove - We could battle over this book's POV and possible deletion forever, but at the very least it's not a "good" book and needs significant work. This should not be featured until its major problems are fixed. -withinfocus 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove - moralising and pseudo-science masquerading as fact. Not what I'd consider a "good book". Webaware talk 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. I've removed the page from the list, because it seems people want it that way. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Paleoanthropology

This book has been on the featured books list for some time, and while it is decent I dont think it really deserves a place on this list right now. With some cleanup, it could be featured again, but right now i dont think this is a model of how other books should be. It uses a bad naming convention (which wouldn't be too too hard to fix, i suppose), it has section titles in ALL CAPS (which is personally annoying to me), and a significant amount of book content is comprised of bullets and lists. If we could get it cleaned up we could keep it on the list but I personally don't have the motivation right now to make all these changes throughout the entire book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep The book looks fine to me. I'm not bothered by the formatting and far more interested in the actual content. Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Is Xania's oppose above really a "support"? The book is very good in parts and needs the attention that being on "featured books" would provide. RobinH 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you vote to oppose or support removal, which is somewhat confusing I know :). Mattb112885(talk) 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, I oppose removal.RobinH 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC
Perhaps you could avoid these issues by saying 'Keep' or 'Remove' instead -- Kowey 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC) [Well, I went in and was bold, do excuse me if it makes a mess]
Remove - This book's naming convention issues alone make me not want to feature it. This is an old book that needs some time to be modernized. Also, RobinH, I changed your vote to what I am pretty sure you actually meant. -withinfocus 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this book appears to be exactly what it claims to be - an Introduction to Paleoanthropology, quite a reasonable one I thought. If it had claimed more than that, then I could understand not tagging it as a "good book", but as it stands, I reckon it's fine. Perhaps it will get dusted off and cleaned up a little with more prominent placement. Webaware talk 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Removed. No consensus to remove book from list. I hope people don't mind that i'm closing this one, even though i did nominate it. Since there will be no action, i want to send this to archive ASAP. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Control Systems

It's a heavy engineering text that I've personally devoted a lot of time to. I know a number of students at my school are using this text as an auxiliary textbook for their classes in the subject and there is at least one class project here that has been heavily influenced (and perhaps even inspired) by this book. I have wanted to nominate this one for some time, but before I got inkscape there were a few embarrassing bitmap images in there that made it look less professional. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Support I know nothing of the topic, but looking at it it seems well-explained and very thorough. Mattb112885 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support This is one big book and also not finished but that's not important as it has the potential to teach people so much even as it is. I can't believe how much work must have gone into creating this. Well done. Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Nice one Whitenight. A useful text with wide applicability. For the future it might contain a few more examples and perhaps some derivations and basic maths exercises on Laplace transforms but the coverage is great anyway. RobinH 09:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Although I find the header system pretty ugly, it has good content. I always enjoy a little MathML in pages. -withinfocus 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"ugly"? that's the most artistic thing I have ever done around here. Way to hurt my self esteem :(. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Muggles' Guide green myself, with a little div centering. -withinfocus 00:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - "feels" like so many professional text books I've seen before. A good quality text. Webaware talk 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Done - seems like no objections so I've gone ahead and added it. Mattb112885 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

This is a previous BoTM winner that is very thorough and well-organized, IMO, and is worthy of being featured. It along with human physiology can be used as examples of the great things that can come from class projects. Mattb112885 (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Well done students! RobinH 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Not only is this a good book, but it's an excellent example of an organized classroom project (something that we should do more to promote). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support The students did a great job in making this book good. It's also a good example of a class project. Tannersf 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - however, I note that this book uses external links (e.g. to Wikipedia) rather heavily, something that I thought was discouraged in Wikibooks. Webaware talk 05:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support One of the most detailed and complete books I've seen. Xania talk 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done 5 enthusiastic votes plus the nomination, no opposition or discouragement. I'll make up the templates and we can archive this in a little while. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handbook of Genetic Counseling

Oppose - as with another book, this book is a long series of bulletted lists with little or no prose; reads like a PowerPoint presentation laid out flat. Webaware talk 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose but I would support if it were called "Checklist for Genetic Counsellors". These "books" that are really checklists should be acceptable if this is clearly identified in the title. RobinH 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This is not going to "grab" the reader with that opening page --Herby talk thyme 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I tend to agree with the above comments. Plus what are the sources? Xania talk 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done. 4 votes against, plus mine makes 5 with no support. Will archive this eventually. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German

This is a lot more complete than the little squares might lead you to believe. RobinH 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose I've been learning German recently, so tried this book, and found it really horrid. The first lesson is great, but it goes rapidly downhill from there; the lessons get really heavy-going, seemingly endless and generally disorganised. And there's nothing worse when learning a language than just a massive list of vocabulary, like here. I mean, it could easily be made more interesting by adding pictures, and such. Plus, none of the individual bits seem to link together: the vocabulary taught in lesson 1 is never revisited, which is the only way, in my opinion, of making it stick properly. Overall, a lot of potential, but needs a good tightening-up and rework before it's ready for Featured book status. Kind regards, Celestianpower 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a little confusing for me to. Xania talk 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Book Design (PDF)

Oppose book doesnt even look half finished, and there are alot of red links in the TOC that make it look as such. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose this book needs to be better than most to avoid being hoist on its own petard. RobinH 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Seems like there's a bunch of stubs on there too, in addition to the redlinks. Mattb112885 (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cell Biology (PDF)

Oppose I feel like alot of the pages are very stub-like, and all the pages on the TOC are listed as "100% complete", which seems like a terrible over-estimation to me. There is also no inter-page navigation, which i find annoying. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - many topics covered very lightly, and to my unscientific view (i.e. a fermenter, not a scientist), there seems to be some factual errors and/or misconceptions. Not one of our best. Webaware talk 06:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Its a shame no-one has added to this book since its early days.RobinH 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Such important and complex topics deserve to be explained in more detail. Xania talk 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's off to a great start but unfortunately not covered in sufficient depth, as Xania said. I could support this if the pages existing were more fleshed out. Mattb112885 (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book

This book is only about 25% complete, but the chapters are arguably stand-alone and 83 of them are 100% complete (only ~270 more to go - it is an ambitious project). I know that this book has been getting heavy use internationally by the Pathfinder community and has been cited on the major Pathfinder forums. It is also linked to by many Pathfinder-oriented websites and is the number one hit on Google when searching for "Pathfinder honors". -- Jomegat 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Considering your personal role in the pathfinder's organization, if you say that it is a "good" resource on the subject then I am certainly not one to disagree. I like the formatting and the layout, the good use of templates, etc. It may need 270 more pages, but the pages you do have are a good model, not only for this book but for other books as well. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - The book is nicely laid-out and has a decent amount of content, but with so much missing I think this needs to wait. If it is only 25% done then I wouldn't make this featured. With a bit more bulk it will be an excellent addition. I would vote the same way were the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter nominated since there is still much to be done. -withinfocus 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Scouts and this sort of thing have never been my cup of tea but this is a very good book and I've seen the amount of effort that has been put into making this such a good book over the past months (by watching RC). It's not finished but it's the kind of book that might never be finished - this can be a good thing! Xania talk 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Support This is a good book. Because of the nature of the book it is still very useful even if it is incomplete. --xixtas talk 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - this is definitely a "good book", and should be featured as an fine example of what Wikibooks contributors can achieve. It may only have 25% of its target information completed, but that 25% is all good, far better than some books here that claim 100% completion, IMHO. Webaware talk 04:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good. RobinH 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Remarkable the dedicated work that has gone into this --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support While it has a long way to go it has gone a very long way, and a lot of those pages that are missing some content at least have something to get you started. Plus the work that is there is high quality. Mattb112885 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support As a leader in the Pathfinder Organization, I am very thankful for this work. Even thouh it is not yet complete, each stand-alone chapter is helpful to many within the organization. Pathfinders 23:33, 30 April 2007 PST

Done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar

Support: I have referenced this one myself and found it to be very helpful, and it's fairly complete. Formating isn't bad in this one, at least not in my view. Mattb112885 (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support There is alot of content here, I would really love to see the creation of a tab-template, to get rid of some of the ASCII-art in the pages here. Also, more images, figures, and diagrams in general would be good. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - good manual on guitars and learning to play. Webaware talk 06:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Xania talk 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A good start, enough to satisfy a beginner. RobinH 08:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Although this book needs lots of fixing (only two scales?) and concrete examples it's still useful. --xixtas talk 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done --Whiteknight (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaTeX (PDF) (print)

Support - I've worked on this one a little bit and over the past few months the amount of content has exploded. If more people knew LaTeX the prettier and more extensible all our documents would be. -withinfocus 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - a very nice, readable, well-structured text! Webaware talk 02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A useful guide. RobinH 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Very nice, something I might even consult from time to time. (besides, LaTeX to a wider audience is quite the pleasant thought) -- Kowey 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Could may be do with a little simplification of language if this is intended for all users of the language but I agree that this is a great book. Xania talk 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)