Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations/Archives/Archive 2
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
[edit] Formal Logic
Support - incomplete, but well structured and well written. Webaware talk 06:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)- Support There is enough here to more than wet the appetite. RobinH 08:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support I wish there was some more content, especially in the "preliminaries" section. What is here is good though. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Xania
talk 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC) - Support But maybe that's my bias to academia talking -- Kowey 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Done 5 vote for, none against. It's been here a while and no objections. I'll throw together a template. --Whiteknight (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US Copyright Law US Patent Law US Trademark Law
These are good beginners guides and should be treated as a single law tome. RobinH 11:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Eh, I think this could be worked on a bit. More content could be added (this is a very verbose subject) and the content segmented into sub-pages. -withinfocus 13:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral At the moment it makes for uneasy reading and needs to be separated into smaller pages. Xania talk 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)- Oppose I agree with both comments above, there isn't nearly enough content here to cover these subjects adequately, and the "single monolithic book" format isnt something that we should be advertising as "good". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done Two oppose votes and no support in nearly three weeks. I would encourage the authors of these books to renominate them, once they are broken into a proper sub-page format. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese
- Oppose Still some unfinished sections and the problem with unlicensed images needs addressing. Xania talk 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Its just not ready yet. RobinH 08:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done Two oppose votes and no support in nearly 3 weeks. This book isn't ready yet. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Modern Physics
Comment This is not really a book but a set of links to books. RobinH 11:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)- Oppose Because so many of the subjects in this book are not inter-dependant, i had started a project a while back to separate this book's chapters into individual stand-alone books. Much of that was made easier because many of the sub chapters already had their own structures, conventions, and templates. I haven't finished the job, however, so there is still much content here that is part of the modern phyiscs book. the long-term intent, however, is to further separate out the material. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As Whiteknight says. It needs some work doing to make this into a better book. Xania talk 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done two oppose votes and no support in over 2 weeks. This book needs some work, and I am willing to do that work, given enough time. We can renominate this later when we fix it up. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nanotechnology
The body of this book has very little content. It became featured without a full vote on this page. RobinH 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I had moved to make this one featured because it had previously been a BOTM. The current list of featured books contained all the BOTM books except this one, and I thought it was fitting to put it in the list because of that honor. Now that we have a standard process for adding and removing books, however, it is pretty clear to me that this one is no longer worthy of being featured, even if it was considered good in the past. We have to remember that the book isn't necessarily "worse" then it was, but the bar has been raised significantly since then (which is good for everybody). --Whiteknight (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I have wondered why this one was on there, though it is a good start. Mattb112885 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Done I'm removing this book, even though it only has two votes to remove. There is no support to keep the book on the list. Hopefully, it won't be difficult for this book to improve and be renominated. --Whiteknight (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikijunior Human Body
The body of this book has very little content. It became featured without any vote on this page and is not even featured on the Wikijunior main page. By its own reckoning it has zero publishable articles. RobinH 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I support removal from list of featured books for now. In the future this should be good but it's still developing. Xania talk 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove It's hard to keep track of how exactly all those books got into that list, many were already in the list when we started this new voting situation, and we have no idea how they may have ended up there in the first place. Again, removing a book should never be taken as an insult, instead it should be motivation to improve and attempt to reclaim featured status in the future. --Whiteknight (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I expect it got onto the list because it is the Wikijunior New Book of the Quarter. The WJNBOTQ used to be listed on the front page as a featured collaboration. --xixtas talk 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Per prior arguments. Mattb112885 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Done I'm going to go ahead and take this book off the list. Removing a book from the list isn;t an insult and shouldnt be a big deal: it's incentive for the book to improve. Since this is a newish book, the authors should be aware that they need to work more on this anyway. --Whiteknight (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Outdoor Survival
I think this book is looking pretty good right now. Someone else should look at it for featured book status. Lonjers 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, its really a pamphlet rather than a book. Useful no doubt. If the title said "Short guide to outdoor survival" I would definitely support. RobinH 10:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - looks pretty good. Perhaps RobinH's comment above is is true too, however, so maybe it should be renamed. Some minor formatting and spelling problems that could be caught and fixed as you review this book. Webaware talk 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It needs a little more work and an attempt to complete the missing parts. Xania talk 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I would say that the book is 90% bullet points, which isn't really a good method of presenting large quantities of material. Beyond that, alot of the statements in this book could use some explanation, why do we or don't we do something in a particular situation? It's not enough to simply say "do this", but you need to say why so people understand. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This book feels kind of unfinished. Photos might help. Also a tighter focus on "survival" and weeding out some of the general outdoorsy tips might make it more focused. There is some useful advice in there though, and this book with a little editing could be a featured book. --xixtas talk 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done One support vote, two opposed, plenty of time has elapsed. I'll archive this in a little while. --Whiteknight (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consciousness Studies
One time book of the month. RobinH 09:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral This book would certainly have my vote if they fixed the naming convention. I just can't justify advertising a book with a bad NC, because these books are going to be models that people will follow to make future books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The naming had already been changed by an admin in the past but the links were incorrect. Now fixed. RobinH 09:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's not in my field. But this book is interesting and seems valuable and extensive in its coverage of the subject. It is a usable book and the kind of material we should highlight. --xixtas talk 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nicely laid out, great narrative, and apparently (I say as someone who knows bugger-all about the subject area) good coverage. Webaware talk 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Is this not original research? I also find this hard to follow with too many large bodies of text. Xania talk 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Xania is sober again and can easily find references to support this book. Xania talk 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Done 4 votes of support, plus the nomination. This book was a BOTM, a status which appears to have been well-deserved. I'll set up the templates for this one. --Whiteknight (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Applied Ecology
- Oppose Most pages consist of a "wall of text" that is difficult to read and not aesthetically pleasing. Content and navigation are decent, but formatting is a serious detraction. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - on the basis of good content and good navigation. I agree that has a lot of words in a big stream, and could be laid out a little better (and perhaps have some images), but I'd still say that it's a "good book". Webaware talk 05:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Difficult to read. Now I see how just a little formatting can make a big difference. Xania talk 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Only just oppose; a little bit more work, more sections and some images would make this suitable for featuring. RobinH 09:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done Three votes against, only one in support. opposition cites lack of readability and lack of relevant images. I'll archive this one eventually. --Whiteknight (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Movie Making Manual
- Oppose - doesn't meet naming standards, and navigation is poor to confusing. Content is very good, though. Webaware talk 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a fairly complete and interesting book. It just needs naming to be sorted out. RobinH 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with webaware. The content in this book is excellent, but there are many confusing aspects that really could be ironed out first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like it. A very original book. Xania talk 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is more of a weak support, but I'm leaving this as a neutral "vote" at the moment. One of the reasons for the naming convention of individual modules is that this book pre-dates the Wikibook policy of WB:NP. As such it is "grandfathered" into this policy by default with the current naming convention, although if somebody wants to get into the business of renaming these pages to something more typical of current Wikibooks naming conventions, I wouldn't complain. If we had a collaboration of the month, I would strongly suggest that this book receive that sort of treatment to push this book forward to a featured book status. A sort of "B" class book that really needs to be upgraded. --Rob Horning 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The naming standards thing should be a no-brainer. Opposing a book for featured status is not condemning it to permanent obscurity. In this case, it just means we can look forward to featuring it in some future date when all the technical kinks have been worked out. -- Kowey 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done, there seems to be no consensus on this one, I agree with Kowey and Rob that it'd be able to be featured if the formatting was fixed up, per the requests above, since there's been no argument about the quality of content. This will be archived sometime soon. Mattb112885 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide
- Support Seems good to me. RobinH 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a good and informative book but to remain good it must be constantly updated and refreshed (like all books of this type). I'm thinking of incorporating this book in to a future "Survival in..." series. Xania talk 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks like a great book: informative, well-styled and to-the-point. Regards, Celestianpower Háblame 09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I agree, the book looks good to me. --Whiteknight (Discuss this) 14:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like this book quite a bit. I remember when it showed up on the new book list, and I thought it was an interesting idea then, and it certainly has been improved considerably since then. This is also a book that is not quite a textbook that can be useful and should be on Wikibooks... and takes advantage of being on a Wiki that can be regularly updated and refreshed. It would be useful to show a bit of depth and range to Wikibooks --Rob Horning 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. 5 Votes for, none against. No reason why this one should not be featured. I'll set up the templates now. We can archive this later. --Whiteknight (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UNDP-APDIP Books
This isn't one book, it's a collection of related books, and I am nominating them as a group because I dont want to nominate (or list) each of them individually. If the community votes to feature them, we will only post one link to this hub page, and not links to each separate book.
These books were all donated by the UNDP-APDIP, which is a sub-group of the united nations. They donated their library of ebooks to wikibooks, and I played a major part in the upload process. Considering the high-profile of this project, and the good press it could bring us (if we ever found a way to capitalize on it), i think this is a good candidate for posting up on the main page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well written, great navigation, great information, heavily interlinked with Wikipedia though. Webaware talk 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Professional introductions. RobinH 08:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support We should feature these books because they are well built out and useful. --xixtas talk 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree with all above comments. Xania talk 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I stumbled on these a couple times and was impressed, then as now. Mattb112885 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support although a bit weakly. I don't disagree that these are outstanding, but comments about the need for cleanup should be removed, or if cleanup is really needed in some places we should try and get that accomplished first before these reach featured book status. This is mainly structural, as the prose in these books is of outstanding quality and the general outline of these books is certainly of a higher quality than most of the rest of Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. 6 support + no oppose = featured. Regards, Celestianpower Háblame 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Miskito
This is an exceptionally well-done language course, both appearance and content-wise. Junesun 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the nomination, the book is well formatted and contains a good amount of content. --Whiteknight (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Whiteknight. Really good book, well done :). Regards, Celestianpower Háblame 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I agree. As with all languages books it would be useful to have some audio added to help with the pronunciation. Xania talk 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support As above. RobinH 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well done indeed -- Kowey 06:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Simply.... wow! An outstanding book. While I would agree that audio would be a huge improvement at well, this is far and away better than nearly every language Wikibook. And for a language that does not have a Wikipedia edition :) This is precisely why Wikibooks exists, to give content like this a chance to flourish and be seen! --Rob Horning 21:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Done 6 votes for, plus the nomination. No votes opposed. I'll create the templates. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hindi
It's the national language of the largest democracy in the world and it's increasing usage makes it even more necessary to learn
- Oppose Whatever the importance of Hindi, the Hindi book is not ready to go yet. -- Kowey 06:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose While I would agree that Hindi is something worthy of a textbook on Wikibooks, this book is not quite ready to be compared to the other books that are currently featured. While more than a mere stub of a book, much more effort needs to go into this book before it achieves featured status. --Rob Horning 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with the above votes. Too many red links and not enough explanation and exercises for such a complex language. Xania talk 11:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done three votes opposed, none in favor. Votes in opposition cite the need for more content and fewer red links before it should be nominated again. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese
This is a fairly complete book to a good standard. RobinH 11:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral While this clearly has had a lot of work put into it, I feel it goes way too fast. I think that since it's a totally different script, at least at the beginning, it needs to go slower and spend far longer on each character, making it large, so one can see what it is. I don't know anything about Chinese, but the Greek Wikibook does it fantastically well, resting languidly on each letter until it goes in. But, I can't oppose, because I know nothing of Chinese, and it does look well-worked and generally professional. Regards, Celestianpower 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Another great language book. Xania talk 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support There is alot of good material here, although User:Celestianpower is right that it moves quickly and could use more examples. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no sign of methodology. Every lesson uses a different approach and does not build on the previous ones. Some lessons are also incorrectly named or contain little content (e. g. lesson 4). Junesun 06:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This wikibook is more complete than most, but for an English speaker to learn Chinese is no simple task. This book needs to be much better before it is useful. Hoogli 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Not done Three votes for (including the nomination), two votes against, 1 neutral. There is no community consensus on this matter, and it is appearing that no consensus will be reached in a reasonable amount of time. Opposition votes cite the speed of progression though the book as being too steep, no consistant narrative, and improperly named pages. These issues should be addressed before the book is nominated again. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robotics
- Comment This book does not adhere to Wikibooks' file structure. RobinH 08:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks like a good book. File structure is irrelevent in my opinion. Xania talk 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The poor naming convention is a big deal to me too. However, there are plenty of other problems: stub pages (especially stub pages listed as "75% complete") and bad formatting are two of my biggest concerns. I am also worried that this relies too heavily on external links. --Whiteknight (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No need to rush. The featured books are supposed to be implicit guides for other wikibooks, so let the Robotics book fix its naming convention and other minor details and we can vote it in. -- Kowey 06:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done One vote in favor, two opposed, no consensus reached and no new comments in nearly a month. Opposition cites the antiquated naming convention, misused development stage templates, and large amount of stub pages. These issues should be addressed before being nominated again. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trigonometry (PDF)
- Support Suitable for school studies. RobinH 10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Lovely book on trig. Webaware talk 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not convinced that it's easy to follow. If that's school level then my brain must be getting slower. It needs a little explanation in some areas and more simpler explanation in other parts but it's heading in the right direction. Xania talk 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree, this book is somewhat a mess right now, I think that a lot of the stubs could be merged into other sections (ex "the unit circle" and "geometrically defining sine and cosine"), there's a "page in need of attention" (which I think violates one of our conditions, and it is, indeed, quite in need of attention), it seems like things are out of order somewhat too. But there's plenty of information on there, and if it's cleaned up I'd change my vote. Mattb112885 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Mattb on this.--Whiteknight (Discuss this) 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not done Two votes in support, two opposed, one neutral. No consensus reached and no new comments in nearly a month. Opposition cites material not suitable for the target audience (too difficult), several stubs, pages in need of attention, and page order. These issues should be addressed before this book is nominated again. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Java Programming
- Neutral Many of the pages in this book are listed at 75%, but they tend to contain very little information. Many pages are only a paragraph or two long, and there are far more code snippets then there are explanations. This book is definitely off to a good start, but I dont think it's quite there yet. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral This is a good book, and I nearly voted in support. However, it could / should be better, and as Whiteknight observes, needs fleshing out in a number of places. Also, the navigation is somewhat inconsistent, varying between styles and completeness from chapter to chapter. Just a little more work would make this ready for Featured status. Webaware talk 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not finished but when it is it will be suitable for nomination again. Xania talk 19:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Not done This nomination has failed to generate any support in a few weeks. Opposition cites the large quantity of stub pages, the lack of sufficient explanations, and the inconsistencies in the page navigation. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Organic Chemistry
- Oppose This is a decent book, but I see alot of instances of formatting that really should be corrected before we should be putting this one on the main page. For instance there are lots of side notes that poing people to associated Wikipedia articles when they really should be using the {{Wikipedia}} template instead of complicated home-brew alternatives with messy divs that are difficult to edit. Also, I've seen at least two instances where preformatted text was used instead of a a table (tables look nicer and are easier to edit). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I will note that this is the book that started it all.... in other words, this book predates even the existence of Wikibooks itself and originally started on Wikipedia. See this history page to see just how old some of the original edits were... just hours after Wikibooks as a project just started and some of the very first edits here of any kind. As such, this book does deserve a special place in the annals of Wikibooks. What is all that more amazing is that it has survived every Wikibooks admin, policy change, page formating schema, classification system, vandal, wandering clueless new user, changes to the MediaWiki software, and everything else that you can imagine. From this perspective, it is amazing that it exists at all, yet it has stood the test of time and in some ways defines exactly what exactly Wikibooks is better than even WB:WIW. --Rob Horning 06:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you that this book is noteworthy, although it would do better as a chapter in History of Wikibooks then it would here, at the moment. Despite it's longevity, this book really doesnt have any currenctly active authors, so we can't expect it to be on the forefront of what we consider to be a "good book", even if it is an "important book". --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not done No positive support in a few weeks. Opposition cites formatting and navigation issues. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arabic
- Neutral I was planning to vote support, but as I started writing I realized that there were far too many criticisms for a full support. The content here is good, but there is no navigation whatsoever. Also, the formatting is bad in some places: There are so many places where a table should be used, but instead the text is padded with white-space to try and "line it up" correctly. There are also a few stub pages here and there that at the very least should be marked with {{stub}} or something. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough lessons and practice exercises. Xania talk 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Not done Nomination has not received any support in several weeks. Opposition cites lack of navigation, inconsistant formatting, stub pages, and a lack of excercises and lessons. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proteomics
- Support A very good book, and another great example of a collaborative classroom project. This brings to mind an idea that perhaps we should follow up on the class projects that are written here, and see if any of them are actually used to teach classes. If our books were actually being used in a classroom, that would be a great piece of news for us to advertise. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A good book with good navigation. Webaware talk 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good -- Kowey 07:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - As per above comments. Xania talk 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Done 4 votes in support and no reservations of any kind. I'll set up the necessary templates. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Volapük
- Oppose I'm sorry, but a single-page book that attempts to teach an entire language is pushing the line a little bit. And the fact that it seems to link to Wiktionary for all it's vocabulary content is a little annoying. Now i'm not against working with Wiktionary for a language course like this, but I am against creating what amounts to a simple index of wikitionary pages. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A language book like this needs proper lessons and exercises to test taught information. As it stands this book is too much like a grammar book and not useful to students. Xania talk 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Not done several weeks with no positive response. Opposition cites the lack of content, and the over-use of inter-wiki links to support the text. Also, comments were made that this book requires more instruction, and not just a listing of words. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Latin
- Support I like this book, it has good content. There are a few instances where I wish the formatting was a little better (making the vocabulary words italic or bold to make them stand out, for instance), and there are a few places where I wish there were more images to break up the text, or more content. However, this book looks decent, and could probably be used to support another course in Latin (although I doubt it is good enough to be the primary book for a course). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support As above - a useful supplementary text at the moment so deserves to be featured. RobinH 13:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I love the "exercises" that are in several of the chapters... something that has been woefully missing from many of our textbooks. While this isn't yet a "complete" textbook, it does show some incredible promise, is a basic topic, and what is done is of outstanding quality. Certainly on par with many of the other featured books that have been put up so far. --Rob Horning 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A good language book complete with plenty of lessons, grammar reference and exercises to complete. Xania talk 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Done no negative votes in several weeks. I will create the necessary templates. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US History
The content is good and it is well laid out. RobinH 11:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Needs quite a bit of information completing but it's defo a good book. Xania talk 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - great story so far, can't wait to see how it ends. Webaware talk 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - given previous comments about books following naming convention (apart from anything else the "tag" does not make it look good) --Herby talk thyme 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The naming convention doesnt look bad to me, and so i've removed the tag from this. --Whiteknight (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is so good that I'm planning on using this to study for my US History final =) Hoogli 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Done 5 votes in support, and the one vote against seems to have been rectified. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geometry for elementary school
- Support - delightful. Webaware talk 06:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a good book. It desperately needs a PDF version. RobinH 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support You are right Robin, it did need a PDF version. It now has one (and a print version too!) --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support I find it hard to follow a few parts but in general this is a very good book which also looks very nice. Xania talk 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I dunno... it certainly starts out well, but I am a bit skeptical about proofs for elementary school students. I invite you to convince me! -- Kowey 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Could use some color or design improvements but it looks like it's got some nice content. -withinfocus 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Done RobinH 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education
- Support RobinH 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral It all reads a little too much like an essay to me and is of course only really intended for US readers and Wikibooks should appeal to everyone. Xania talk 11:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support When did this book slip in under the radar? Holy cow! It is the "largest" wikibook on the whole project! (see the stat page per wikibook... it is over 1.5 million words of content, over 1100 modules, and over 400 registered users who have participated in content development. This is almost a whole Wikimedia project by itself! I havn't given this book a through review in terms of NPOV, OR, and other similar issues, but it is certainly a very well developed book and deserves some sort of mention on the front page if only for the volume of the content. Since this isn't getting notice on the front page, where is everybody coming from that is developing this content? --Rob Horning 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A lot of nice content it seems. -withinfocus 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support although I would be happier if the big picture on the cover went straight to the table of contents, and if the 'rate this' stuff was a little less prominent (visible, yes, but two huge arrows like that, eww...) -- Kowey 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support It is a good book, and it's also a good example of a class collaboration project that we can use to attract other classes and group projects to Wikibooks. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Done RobinH 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-Programmer's Tutorial for Python
- Support Alot of this book is written in the first person, which threw me off at first. Then I remembered: This is wikibooks, and we encourage authors to present information in non-traditional ways. Even though the author speaks from a first-person perspective throughout, i feel that it's a very helpful book that is easily approachable for a new user. Many books claim to be "...for beginners", but this book actually delivers. I like it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Many books labelled for beginners simply aren't for beginners. This one is. Good on it. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Python is a language commonly used in introductory computer science classes and this could definitely be quite helpful for some visitors to the site. -withinfocus 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - This is really good. I think it helps users in a nice step by step way. It really is for people first learning to program. -User:TBOL3TBOL3 12:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I think the first-person helps, especially as it's targeted towards non-programmers. It's certainly easy to understand; it's been a long time since I've done any programming, and I've never dealt with Python, and I found it very easy to follow. Organizational structure could be revamped though. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support as above Zginder 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I've no problem with the first person usage but this book's language confuses me. I also think we need to limit the number of techie books we advertise as 'featured'. Wikibooks has lots of these books already. Xania talk 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Despite my own opposition, the community seems to agree that this should be a featured book. I'll make the changes if I can figure out how or someone can tell me how to add a book to the featured books list... Xania talk 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Atlas Shrugged
- Support I would be happier if some of the large pages were broken into more smaller pages, for ease of page loading and navigation, but this is a good book nonetheless, and a good example of an annotated text. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Needs a front page. RobinH 08:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Xania talk 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Could use a lot more formatting and annotation work. -withinfocus 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - Atlas Shrugged is a huge book, and although there is a lot of information in this Wikibook, it is not complete. Hoogli 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - there's too much missing; for example, all of Account Overdrawn is missing. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Not done 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral. No consensus reached after a long nomination. Concerns cited include many pages need to be broken down into smaller pages, lack of formatting, lack of annotations, and not enough content. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ecology
- Support - a consistent structure, leading the reader through the essentials of basic ecology. Perhaps it would be better titled "Basic Ecology" (as it is on its title page). Webaware talk 06:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Marshman made such a good start on this book but it has been left a bit thin. Where are all the other ecologists out there? RobinH 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose formatting is certainly not the worst i have ever seen (it's actuall quite good in some places), but the content is lacking. This book could benefit from more pictures, and less reliance on wikipedia articles. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support More could be done but I'm happy with the present condition of this book. Xania talk 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose there are to many red links see featured books criterion #9. Zginder 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Programming Mac OS X with Cocoa for beginners
- Support - solid introduction to Cocoa programming. Webaware talk 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not convinced that this is good enough if it's targeted to beginners. This paragraph "When an object is no longer required, its 'dealloc' method will be called. If you allocated anything as part of your initialisation, or operation of your object, you need to override this method and deallocate it. Once done, you should call the super's dealloc method. You will be frequently overriding dealloc, so become familiar with doing it. However, dealloc is rarely called directly. Instead, it is called indirectly when an object is released." is an example of something I am completely baffled by. This is not for beginners but for level 5 computer nerds. Xania talk 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This "book" is split across at least two different names, the other being Programming:Cocoa, and has red links. This book needs some work before its fit to be an example of the best of what we got. --darklama 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Programming:Cocoa is a separate book. --hagindaz 16:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not done 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 comment. No consensus reached after a long nomination. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Python Programming (PDF)
- Support - Nice language, decent book about it. -withinfocus 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A very nicely written book, well structured and written, and pleasing to look at. A book to read, to get more out of Wikidpad! Webaware talk 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral This is another book that is a bit thin on content. RobinH 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Random pages I followed were empty or short on content and some just showed me frightening amounts of strange code without any explanation. Xania talk 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Xania on this, the book is a nice start but just doesnt seem ready. Several of the pages are completely empty or are stubs. Also, some of the tables and formatting are a little strange to me, and they should probably be fixed. --Whiteknight (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as there are whole subjects missing. just click on some of the chapters. Zginder 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
