Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations/Archives/Archive 3

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Algorithms (PDF) (print) 2 C++ Programming As A Set Of Problems 3 C Sharp Programming 4 Movie Making Manual 5 Quenya 6 Unilingua 7 XForms Tutorial and Cookbook 8 Calculus 9 First Aid (PDF) 10 French 11 A Concise New Zealand History 12 Korean 13 How to pass a course 14 US History 15 Anatomy and Physiology of Animals 16 Novial 17 Wikijunior:World at work 18 Radiation Oncology 19 Dutch Empire

[edit] Algorithms (PDF) (print)

Support - well laid out, good content even if not complete, great narrative. Webaware ^talk 05:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Another book that is a bit thin on content. Even a "quicksort" was missing. RobinH 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support There certainly are plenty of algorithms out there that aren't included in this book, but it has decent formatting and some good background. I worry that the current format isn't upwardly scalable to cover all the major algorithms that are worth covering, they are going to have to add new pages or risk having the current pages become gigantic. Look at Knuth's "The art of computer programming" which is so gigantically huge that it was broken into several volumes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I understand nothing from this book. I don't even know who it's targetted towards, what it's about and what most of the abbreviations and jargon means. Xania ^talk 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Vote changed to support. See my comments further below for brief rationale. Xania ^talk 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support See comments below -- Kowey 06:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose there are to many red links see featured books criterion #9. Zginder 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I havent found a single redlink yet in reading through the book (except for one that pointed to another book that has since been moved. I fixed that). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support As per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zginder (talk • contribs) 09:51, October 11, 2007.

Done 5 support votes, 1 neutral, no outstanding oppose votes. This book is now featured. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C++ Programming As A Set Of Problems

Support - I really like how this book it laid out, it explains C++ in simple easy to understand language, many of the other books seem to require knowledge of C, or at least Programming in general, while this book is great for beginners like me, I'd love to see it get past chapter one, or a book with similar writing style created, perhaps not using problems, but lots of examples like you would see in a commercial book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarod (talk • contribs) 20:17, November 1, 2007.

Oversaturated oppose - nowhere near complete enough. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose What's here is decent, although the "wall of text" should never be considered a suitable presentation method. Images, tables, code examples, headings, templates, anything should added to help break up the monotony of paragraph after paragraph. Also, this book only has one chapter, and one chapter hardly makes a book. With some reformatting, I think that this is a good start to a book, but it seriously needs to be expanded in order to be considered for this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There are dozens of books that are just as good as this, and none of them come anywhere close to featured-book status. Hoogli 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not done 1 support vote, 3 oppose. Opposition all agree that the book is too short, even if the existing content is of a high quality. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C Sharp Programming

Support - well structured and well written. It also sticks to the topic at hand, namely the C# language, not the whole .NET architecture. However, while inter-chapter navigation is good, there is no navigation within chapters. Also, not complete yet. I still feel that this is a good book. Webaware ^talk 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I like this book, but I dont really like the complicated way that they used templates syntax-highlighting. however, it is an innovative solution to a common problem (although now we have automatic syntax highlighting built right into the mediawiki software). Some of the later chapters are a little light on content as well, but I find that to be the case in nearly every book. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - I greatly enjoy the language and think this book provides some decent material on it. -withinfocus 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should the red keywords be written? Zginder 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - It looks like a good book but why don't any of these books provide links to somewhere on the web where you can see a working example of what has just been taught in the book (like a little program highlighting usage of loops, etc.)? Xania ^talk 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. 4 support, no opposition after a long nomination. I'll add the necessary links. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Making Manual

A very thorough wikibook on how to make a movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoogli (talk • contribs) .

Strong Opposed Its structure is a mess, probably the worst case of not using a consistent naming convention that Wikibooks has right now, with only some pages starting to follow WB:NP. There is MMM:, MMM/, MMM_Page, Movie_Making_Manual: and Movie_Making_Manual_Page. Quite a few pages are stubs with little content. I imagine with all the name inconsistencies, there is probably a good chance of there being also lots of orphans and style inconsistencies. This book right now is a far cry from being what other people should considered a good example. --darklama 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Categorization is funky too - pages are categorized in sections, and some are not in Category:Movie Making Manual. Movie Making Manual/Certification for example. As well, there are notices that "this module belongs to MMM" which is redundant, since MW automatically adds a link up the hierarchy. Even worse, those notices aren't consistent. As for content, there is some duplication (which might be justified - I'm no expert, but is more likely a result of inconsistent naming of pages) and areas needing significant expansion. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This book has previously been nominate, and that nomination was closed as "not done" on 22 May. From a brief overview, it appears that none of the previous criticisms have been addressed between then and now. The naming convention problem is the most pressing, and I dont see how we can feature this book before that issue is resolved. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not done Three opposition votes and no support votes in several days. This book should not be nominated again until it's naming convention issues are sorted out. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quenya

I vote to denominate Quenya as a featured book. It's content is small and no more than the book, Korean, mentioned below. Not to leave out that Quenya is a useless fictional language whilst Korean is a real, widely spoken language. Based on the votes below for Korean, I move to de-featurise Quenya. --Girdi (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Of course. Poor coverage, and even so, the content itself does not belong on Wikibooks per Pilingual Primer and its demise and eventual deletion. I recommend immediate denomination. Laleena (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - If you think the content doesn't belong on Wikibooks, then nominate it for deletion, citing policy. I haven't had the chance to review the book yet, but would you mind citing which criteria this book fails to meet so I can watch for that?  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Well, hold on, I don't think it should be deleted. It is an artificial language that I can see Lord of the Rings fans using and being interested in. (I am not one, I am actually anti-artificial languages, but regardless). I think this book is not as structured well as Spanish and French, which are prime examples of what a language featured book should look like. Then again, if you actually would delete Quenya, then might as well delete Unilingua, Esperanto, Lojban, Novial, and the other constructed languages, I actually don't have a problem with that for personal reasons. :) --Girdi (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  Since Mike asked me on the topic, I'll respond: Mike, I think Quenya should be deleted (next thing on the agenda) because it has no real use (or practical, except in certain cases) and should be reserved for Wikia. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support removal - Making this a featured book in the first place was a mistake; let's rectify it. Thanks to Whiteknight for the explanation - now I know why I couldn't find the nomination despite searching all the archives several times. Thanks also to Laleena for the clarification; please see WB:VFD#Quenya for that discussion.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I support this book's removal from featured status. There is little information, and like what has already been said, there are plenty of other books that aren't featured that are just as good as this one. Helpfulstuffnz (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• SupportRemove: A tiny book that in too small for its subject to be featured. Zginder (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per above. For me, language textbooks have tobe set out in graduating lessons. This is not. It's a good grammar guide, sure, but you could never actually learn the language via it. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Quenya had in the past been nominated as a "Book of the month" (BOTM), back when we still picked a book every month to feature on the main page. Once we stopped doing BOTM, and created this "featured books" thing instead, all the old BOTM books automatically were made "featured". In other words, the only reason this book is featured now is because somebody thought it was good several years/months ago. I would wholeheartedly agree that it is no longer worth being featured. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  To note here, the reason why a removal forum was even added in the first place was to address the issue of rising standards as other Wikibooks have become much more developed. When this book was featured as a Book of the Month, it really was one of the best of what Wikibooks had to offer. But that standard has changed since then, and I consider this to be a sign of the maturity of Wikibooks rather than an offense against this particular Wikibook. I think this particular language guide could be enhanced to again be worthy of featured book status, but it will take some effort from those who enjoy the study of that particular language to help in improving the content and making it something worthy of being "the best of Wikibooks". On the whole, this is speaking volumes about the progress that has been made in the past year by Wikibooks participants, and this is very good news indeed that a book of the month is being de-listed for this purpose. --Rob Horning (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. General support to remove this book from the listings. I have created {{Was Featured}} to highlight books that had previously been featured, but were de-listed due to rising community standards. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unilingua

I read the book and it is essential to have it lose featured status. Following WK's comment at the Reading Room and reading part of it myself, the book is like Quenya in that the content isn't substantial enough to be featured. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

remove I want to make perfectly clear that this is not some kind of condemnation of conlangs. However, this book really isn't "great" in any sense, and is probably not the kind of book that we want to have featured on the main page. With some work/improvement, I think it could be worthy of being featured again. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove This book is quite similar to Quenya in the sense that there isn't really enough good content to warrant it featured status. Helpfulstuffnz (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove Does not have a lesson play more the linguistics of the language then anything else. Zginder (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove I would like to see both of these constructed language books as featured books again in the future but for now these books don't compare well to some of the other great featured books that Wikibooks has. The pages need to be more attractive with exercises and less use of long tables. Xania ^talk 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I, personally, do not think that these books will be re-featured anytime soon. There aren't many contributors on Wikibooks to begin with, and even if there were, usually only a linguist would work on books like these. I could, myself, probably split the content into exercises, but when it comes to adding new stuff I'm lost. I could probably ask somebody to ask somebody to work on these books, but I don't have any guarantees. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hello, my name is Jóhann, and I am a linguist. :) I'm around languages all day at university. --Girdi (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jóhann, I guess you could help with the book. Do you know Unilingua? If you do, I think you could help on the book. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done I think it is pretty clear that this book is no longer satisfying the FB requirements. I will have Whiteknight put up the {{Was Featured}} template on the page. I would like to see this featured again but for now I can't work because of Volcanoes which I'd like to bring up the ladder. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the template; this book is no longer featured.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XForms Tutorial and Cookbook

Comment - an excellent book, well written, well organised (the book and the team!), lots of good examples. However, it is a large book with examples that the reader would likely want to browse one after another, and thus would greatly benefit from inter-page navigation. Pages are uncategorised also, and the contents page is in non-existent categories. A "good book", but... Webaware ^talk 07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - on reflection, it really is a "good book". Webaware ^talk 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support The comment above is largely true but this is clearly a useful and nearly complete book. Dwelling on format may unnecessarily restrict the exposure of what is really a "good book". RobinH 07:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Could stand better categorization, but the book is in great condition otherwise. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Cookbook? I don't understand. This has nothing to do with a cookbook?? Xania ^talk 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the technical realm, a cookbook is a book of code snippets readily inserted into your own code. see a definition here. Webaware ^talk 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done - After an absurdly long nomination, it seems those who know the subject matter agree that this is a good book. I'll make up the appropriate templates shortly.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

I've been reading this book over for a while now, and I would like to nominate it to be a featured book. While some of the later chapters need some spit and polish, I would say that the overall book has plenty of good formatting, makes good use of images throughout, and (for the most part) has good formatting. My main complaint about this book is that some of the pages tend to be very long, but that's nothing that a little copy+paste moves of content couldn't fix. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support The little square progress indicators do not do the book justice. It needs a PDF to bring it together and make it easily readable. RobinH 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Its not complete but it has certainly enough information to make it useful, and yes the squares are either outdated or very strict on how complete the authors want a page to be to be considered "complete". Mattb112885 (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Support WB needs a good book on calculus, and this one is off to a great start. I agree about the indicators, this book is definitely ahead of the status they indicate (or I've forgotten way more calculus than I'd care to admit!) Webaware ^talk 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Most of the indicators seem pretty accurate as quite a few sections in the book have only a few lines written. I'd like to see some kind of tidying up of the progress indicators and an easier to use contents list before I can support this book (the content is excellent). Xania ^talk 11:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have read through the entirety of the book and I have made about 350 edits thus far, as far as rigorousness and content go this book is far from complete. I will need a month to get this book to what I would consider featured status. I won't go into too many specifics, but there are some very basic errors in the earlier sections, exercises need to be written, and the more advanced sections are vague at best and misleading to downright wrong at worst. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - This book's unique design and (at the least) decent content makes for a nice feature. -withinfocus 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Nice work. But shouldn't the red links (accessible from the contents page) be written before the book becomes featured?--Shahab 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose is not complete and I found an error in a very quick read. The three red links under "Applications of Integration" need to be written. Zginder 15:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Redlinks need to disappear. The rest of the book seems very well done though; the previous comments cover it well enough. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - The redlinks are not as numerous as I thought and are not "core" material; WK is right that they instead show potential for expansion rather than a deficiency. I'd still prefer if the pages were created with a "needs expansion" template or something. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment . Books are allowed to have some redlinks, but shouldn't have too many. It's a judgement call, not an absolute. Keep in mind that the wiki writing process is never "complete" in the sense of traditional books, and books may be expanded to include new material long after the book has been featured. Red links in this case may not be indicative of an incomplete text, but instead could demonstrate that there is potential for growth. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Criterion number 9 for Featured book says "Not...contain...red links." Zginder 12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's now been changed to "too many red links", which is more reasonable, and more true to common practice anyway. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your passive "its now been changed" instead of "I changed it." (sarcasm) Zginder 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters either way whether I use the passive or the active voice. The criteria are simply guidelines, and if people are attempting to read them too strictly, then we need to ensure that a strict reading of them produces the intended results. Also, I would say that in the grand scheme of things, the precise wording of the criteria for featuring a book is a small issue. In the end, we want to ensure that "good" books are featured, "not good" books are not featured, and that books that belong in either category are not kept out unnecessarily based on technicalities and loopholes. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It matters because some people may read it to say consensus on the polices discussion page changed at the same moment as I posted my comment, but the policy was really changed by you. However, in this case I realize that you wrote the policy originally, so no problem, just be careful in the future. Zginder (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy any longer, and should not really have been listed as one in the first place. For that error, I apologize. It is now listed as simply a "useful" page, not anything binding and official. Of course, if people wanted to make it more "official", there could be a discussion to that effect. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment As I was reading/editing the book I found a large factual error that I am still correcting. It is not ready for featured status, yet. Zginder (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not done Good levels of support, but a few reservations have been expressed by people who are involved with reading/editing this book. Let's close this nomination now, give the editors time to fix any problems that they can find, and renominate this book again in the near future. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Aid (PDF)

This is the original reason I came here from Wikipedia, and I'm happy with it's state these days. I think it meets all the criteria; there are 2 things you should note. A)Navigation may not be ideal. B)The Advanced Topics section isn't complete, but isn't needed for an SFA/CPR-C course (which is what the intent was originally); think of that section as a series of extras. It does have a pdf version for Canada (use in the US should be fine too). – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Support One thing that clearly does set this book above and beyond other books is precisely that goal and that plan. Wiki is not paper, and many people take that to mean that books will just grow forever like so much urban sprawl. It takes higher-then-average planning and organization to say "this is all we set out to do, and we've done it satisfactorily". I like this book. I like the templates and the formatting. The navigation may indeed not be 100% perfect, but you would be hard pressed to find any book (even a featured book) where it is. This is a good book, and certainly worthy of recognition. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Yes, this book is definitely one of Wikibooks' finest. It is what Wikibooks strives to be. --Jomegat 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Wow this is one big book! It seems very detailled, the information is correct from the one or two things I tried to check and the language is simple enough to understand for mere mortals also. Good book. Xania ^talk 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - Still has its development areas but showcases a large work. -withinfocus 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Done 4 votes to support, plus a glowing nomination. This vote has been open for some time, and voter apathy is no reason to keep it from being featured. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French

It is a great help for learners.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaydev (talk • contribs) November 23, 2007.

Oppose I note that some sections need to be rated and some of the rated ones need to enter the green zone, looking over the table of contents. It does have the initiative, although I wish you'd go over to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity for somebody who really knows French, unless you do. Thanks, Laleena 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is already a featured book?? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 07:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

done...ish French is already a featured book. I have added a template to that affect onto the main page of the book. (speaking of which, the main page could really use a bit of a face-list, but that's neither here nor there). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Concise New Zealand History

A concise, easy to read book on the history of New Zealand. Helpfulstuffnz 06:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support It could be made a bit more attractive but this is a good book and is very detailed for something that describes itself as "concise". Xania ^talk 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a nice book. -withinfocus 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - "Concise" it is, but I can't help but think it is wholly lacking in detail. This isn't a textbook; it's a pamphlet. Most history textbooks are hundreds of pages; is a text this short really useful? I know it was renamed to "A Concise New Zealand History" out of concern that an enormous text would be intimidating to readers, but I think might be borderline useless. There's literally two sentences about NZ gaining independence. I think more detail is needed to do justice to the subject matter, even if you're aiming for a short book. That said, I'm open to persuasion since what's there is good quality.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Why should a useful text have to be hundreds of pages long? This book is an introduction to New Zealand history. Not everyone wants to wade through an enormous text, if you did then New Zealand History online would be a good place to start. What is lacking is a concise history of New Zealand; there are already plenty of long histories of New Zealand on the internet. I have a relative who doesn't like history, but found the New Zealand History book very interesting and she learned a lot. She wouldn't have gone near a big text on New Zealand history. This book is aimed at people like her. Helpfulstuffnz (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - I never said it had to be hundreds of pages long, I'm just saying that this is shorter than what I would consider to be a very short textbook. I'm quite serious when I call it a pamphlet. It could literally be printed on like 5 sheets of paper. I think that more than 2 sentences on independence (for example) should be present to do justice to the subject matter (though hundreds of pages is by no means necessary). However, if the book does what it aims to do, then I'll support. Like I said, the content is quite good, so if it meets it's goals, then by all means, feature it!  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mike is right to assert that this book is short, however wiki is not paper and should not be constrained by the typical page-length requirements of a typical book. Good short books deserve just as much recognition as good long books. Sometimes, I think, it can be more impressive to be focused and concise, especially considering the wiki tendency to grow endlessly and, sometimes, shapelessly. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the sections are as good as this, then it would be an excellent textbook, suitable for even college studies. But if they are like this, then it does not deserve featured status. Parts of it should probably be expanded. Also, I wonder if people don't want to expand the Missionaries section because it might offend somebody if they expand it to the excellent political coverage I've found. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have expanded on the Missionaries section, and can expand on other small chapters if more people express a need for it, but I really would like to keep the book in its concise state. Helpfulstuffnz (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Of course, now it's been expanded, I'll vote pro. Laleena (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a useful book - not all books have to be postgraduate level. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Good levels of support, this book is now featured. We can always continue to improve on this book, to help resolve any additional concerns. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korean

I actually think that with some brief overrun of this book with grammar corrections and so on, this could actually be a featured book. I am learning Korean now and I have used this book today and I am very satisfied with its layout and explanations, and even links to Wiktionary for vocabulary. I nominate this book for featured. --Girdi (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 are almost entirely red-links, a handful of chapters in earlier sections are red as well. The pages in Levels 1 and 2 are just small vocabularly lists, and contain little prose (this may be intended, i cannot tell). Inter-page navigation is nice, but isn't properly applied to all pages. What is here is decently good, but there isn't nearly enough. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There are too many red links. Laleena (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Although what's there is of a fairly good standard, the book doesn't seem quite complete enough to be featured at this stage. It's a good start though. Helpfulstuffnz (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then this is a comparison on other books and their standards. It makes me wonder then why Miskito and Quenya, especially Quenya are wikibooks. Not that I disagree with the above comments, I would oppose also. But I just judge featured books from the Miskito and Quenya books, which do not deserve the featured. --Girdi (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what your opposition is to the Miskito book, it's a very good book in good condition with lots of content, few red links, etc. Can you elaborate further on what, precisely, makes that book unacceptable? Also, I think the majority of people are in agreement about the Quenya book, and I believe it will be un-featured soon. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not done, no support after a fairly long nomination. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 23:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to pass a course

This is a good WikiBook. It's short, but it does accomplish what it is designed to do. The information in it is what helped me to better in my education. I would highly recommend this as a featured book. The only thing that could really make it better is some examples. -TBOL3

• Comment After the nomination, I went through this book like a hurricane: adding navigation templates, fixing formatting, fixing grammar/spelling where I could find it, etc. I also created a printable version for the book. The print version still needs a cover page, by the way. It's much better now then it was, but I'm not certain that it's good enough yet to be featured. I do think, however, that with a little hard work it could be made much better quickly. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support An excellent book, although it could use some improvement. Laleena (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Call to close- this has been here since Dec. 31, 2007. I will close soon if this is not done. Laleena (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not done I know I supported its status uplift, but I reran the book and, since it has had almost a month to get some more comments (and hasn't), I am closing as a book that, even though I would suggest recognition as a good book, it just isn't at the level required to reach FB status. It is better than Quenya and Korean, though. Cheers, Laleena (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US History

This book has been cleaned up, and I think we agree that it meets the criteria now. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Or is it History of the United States? The cover page is the latter, while the rest of the book is the former. This is a good book with substantial content, but it needs a lot of cleanup. Nearly every link in the book is a redirect, several pages are setup like [[US History:Presidents]] rather than [[US History/Presidents]], and the navigation throughout the book is not standardized, or on every page. Several pages also feature maintenance tags. I think this makes it not meet criteria 3, 6, and 8. Also, I think the History bookshelf needs some sort of policy outlining what is and is not acceptable for a history textbook. Several of these books spend far too much time (in my opinion) dealing with trivial modern issues, that 50 years from now will not be relevant to history. This book is probably the worst case of this that I've seen. The VFD nomination of this page (which, incidentally is not linked to from the Contents page) and my subsequent examination of the rest of the book is what sparked this nomination. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) This is a book that has fallen into general disrepair, and has not been maintained over time. It was once a very good book comparatively, but our standards have risen here dramatically in recent months. Many of the pages are "blocks of text", with very little formatting, few pictures, etc. There are some pictures, certainly, but I also saw a few places where images have been deleted, and only the red links remain. The naming conventions that you pointed out are also a big problem, and need to be corrected in a serious way. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support - This book has no (correct me if I'm wrong) green/100% markers before George W. Bush. That shows it's a current-events book. However, there is nothing wrong with current-events books as long as you recognize they are such. But this "history" textbook has little information before George W. Bush. Also, not everyone agrees what "human rights" are. I personally believe some things that are called "human rights" in this book (or that's the connotation of "human rights") and most people in the U.S. think likewise. So, I support this one losing featured status, but I would like to see it (or a similar book) be featured soon. Cheers, Laleena (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I fail to see how "cleanup tags" can possibly be avoided for this book, especially in the last chapter. This book does offer a good example of what a history book can look like on Wikibooks, and is an example of a well-written history book that can be used for actual instruction of this topic. Yes, I'll admit there are some significant short falls in the book, and considerably more material can be added. In a sea of rising expectations, perhaps removal from featured status can be re-considered, so I guess I place this more as a weak opposition to its removal. But I'm also warning to not raise the standard so high that good books like this can never meet the criteria for inclusion due to the topic and structure of such a book. In response to Laleena, the information before George W. Bush is amply covered in depth. In fact, most of the 19th Century U.S. History is pretty much stable, free of mark-up tags, and of generally fair quality in terms of prose. Yes, even more can be added here, but this is a general history book and not just a current events book. That perhaps some work can happen on the most recent episodes of American history is true, and keeping those particular pages current is always a challenge for any history book writer. Also, there is a green 100% marker next to the US History/Contents/W Bush module. This is a huge scope for a book, and it is remarkable that such a book has been written with surprisingly NPOV tone throughout most of its pages. --Rob Horning (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Comment - I got rid of the redirects and such, but there are two left that I can't figure out how to fix. US History/W Bush and US History/Roaring Twenties and Prohibition are both linked to by the Print Version, but I can't figure out where. If someone could figure this out for me, fix the links in question, and then delete the redirects, this book would be well on its way to being cleaned up quite a bit. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Comment - Neoptolemus, you have to click the button for "George Bush, 9/11, ...", which is the same content as the W Bush article. Laleena (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Comment As well, the link for the Roaring Twenties is where you'd find it. Laleena (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) The problem was actually not on those pages, but on the navigational links to them from pages before them. The [[../]] style links caused the Print version to link to different pages, but it's fixed now. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Comment - I've cleaned up more (only maintenance tags and the naming issue remain), so I'd like to propose that we decide upon a name for this book. United States History? US History? History of the United States? All are currently used in some form at present. Once we settle on a name, I'll move for this nomination to be closed as an Oppose due to the fact that all issues that prompted the nomination for removal will hopefully have been resolved by then. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose This book needs some attention but is good in parts. On balance I think it should remain a featured book. The large number of US readers of Wikibooks do not seem to be correcting the faults, perhaps this shows how Wikibooks works on a different model from Wikipedia with each Wikibook tending to be the work of less than 5 authors. RobinH (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Now that I have extra buttons, I think I'll be able to clean this book up a lot sooner and I will then close this nomination. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 11:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy and Physiology of Animals

This is a complete and detailed book with some excellent illustrations. It has a clear preface of its aims and it delivers the contents in a straight forward structure. In my opinion an excellent book. --AdRiley (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support You're right, this book should have FB status. I might consider reducing the illustrations, but that's it. A clearly standard book. Laleena (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support All I have to say about this book is Wow! I really like the level at which it is written. I would leave every illustration that's there intact though. IMHO, they add rather than detract. --Jomegat (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like this book, and It's certainly worthy of being featured. We all know that being featured doesnt mean that the book is "complete", so in the long term I would like to see improvements in terms of better and more creative formatting, a print and PDF version (which I could work on myself when I have more time), and other details that will transform this book from "good" to "great". --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This book has excellent content, which is the heart of any textbook. Whiteknight is right, though, that some formatting would go a long way to improve it even further.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - this is a Good Book. The illustrations are good, and really add to the book, although some images should be converted to wiki markup for added clarity (e.g. tables, some formulae). Could do with some navigation links added. Still, it is a very nice book and deserves to be featured. Webaware ^talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done This is an excellent book that I would call to the prestigious status of being featured. I will arrange for the templates to be made, and also, I would like to note that, to those who would contribute further to this book or a related one, the Wikijunior book is is poor shape. Cheers, Laleena (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novial

I think that, with an overrun of this book, it could really be featured. Good guides to pronunciation, etc. However, you should note that, although the rest of the book is excellent, there are no Lessons 8 & 9. However, the readers are good, and I think this will be a useful and helpful guide to someone interested in this language. Laleena (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - this has large numbers of redlinks, and even the blue links lack depth of coverage. This is not yet a textbook one could use to teach from.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The first few chapters are little more then long unexplained lists of vocabulary, and the remainder of the book consists almost entirely of long, unformatted blocks of text. Even places where simple formatting would set apart quotations or exercises, there is currently none. The large numbers of redlinks that Mike pointed out are troubleing as well. A few redlinks are perfectly fine, but the redlinks in this book represent nearly 50% of the explanatory text of the book (excluding pages which are only lists of vocabulary words). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that the latter part, "An International Language", is not part of the textbook. As stated immediately under the title it is a translation of the original book on Novial into Novial.

The chapters of the textbook are essentially complete in themselves. Everything is explained and many examples provided. This might look like "unexplained lists of vocabulary" but if you actually read one lesson you will see that it is a continuous text. Each chapter starts with a reading text and is immediately followed by the vocab list for that text. If you click on a highlighted word in the text (a new word, which the beginner has not seen before) it jumps to its position in the vocab list, so the learner can read its translation and jump back. There follows explanations of new grammar and word-formation with many examples.

I'm not stating this to support its being a featured book, but it's interesting to see how ready people are to pass judgement on something without reading it, or at least a fair part of it. But such is Wikibooks. Novialiste (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done After having re-read the book in light of your comments, I am against the nom and would like to close as a good book that needs one step up for FB status. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijunior:World at work

A good, simple introduction to jobs around the world, probably written for ages 4-6/7. Lots of pictures, enough to pull in a young one. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Support This is a book that User:Xixtas has put a lot of effort into, and it really shows. This is the kind of book that would be perfect for young children to read together with their parents or their teachers. It's a perfect example of the kinds of books we should have to target these young age groups. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Support This has some of the best formatting I've seen on Wikibooks, and suits the audience very well. It's when I see books like this I think it'd be nice to have a separate place for Wikijunior so the interface can be given an overhaul to meld with the content better.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have always been curious why they haven't made a separate Wiki for Wikijunior like they did with Wikiversity, now quite successful. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support There are so many different professions out there for kids to dream of, and this book certainly would provoke their imagination. If United States wasn't already taken, I would add in an astronaut! The maps and flags are a nice touch for a fun geography lesson as well. Very nicely done! Νεοπτόλεμος 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support --Jomegat (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - simply delightful! Webaware ^talk 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - This is a featured one, it's that good. I will either make the template or get someone to do it, but this one is going to be featured. Plenty of pictures, good content. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[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] 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))

Oppose This is an excellent start for the book, and is a great example of how far a book can come in so short a time. I almost can't believe that there is a serious FB nomination for a book that still has the {{new book}} template on it! Even though this is a great start, I oppose this nomination (for now) for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons are: those that Jomegat mentioned (mostly the navigation issue), a lack of formatting on pages, some pages are very stubbish, etc. I would also like to see a print version for this (which is something that I will start working on myself in a few minutes), and possibly a PDF (which I might also be able to help with). This book is a great start, but it needs to mature a little bit before we make it featured. Keep up the good work, and I will help where I can! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a cover page (similar to the current main page, but with fewer links and templates) and I created a print version for this book. I am also working with User:Red4tribe to make a navigation template for this. I think that many issues will be resolved shortly. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

comment Ok I finished up the template, and added a little detail to a few articles. Tell me what you think of the edits. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Neutral This is very good progress in two days, and I rescind most of my previous objections. The navigation is now much much better, there is a Print version too. I tried to make a PDF version, but my rendering software seems to mess up the images a lot (I dont know why yet). I still hold that the book needs to mature a little bit: Some pages need to be expanded and formatting needs to be improved in general. I've upgraded my vote to neutral, to commemorate these improvements. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, this just needs some more time. I was going to edit the navigation template at the bottom, but it was substituted instead of transcluded :( Would you please make sure that template is transcluded instead of substituted on all pages? This book is a great start, but it still needs some work before it's ready for primetime.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

comment I like this book. It covers some important events in world history. A little more on William of Orange, the destruction of Spanish power, Dutch commercialism would be great. It is just a bit short on detail at the moment... If it were a bit more complete I would vote in favour. RobinH (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done This is a growing book with definite potential. However, there is no consensus here to have it featured. There is some good criticism and suggestions here that can be used to improve this book. I hope that it continues to grow and improve, and I hope that it is nominated again for this in the future when the issues have been addressed. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)