Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Oz books

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Oz books[edit]

This is a semi-self nom, since I have put alot of work into the list. This article is quite attractive, and lists all the official Oz books, as well as others written by the original authors, and a few modern authors (Gregory Maguire's Wicked, for example). The list is definately one of the most complete I have seen online. Peer review archives can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Oz Books/archive1. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's likely that most if not all of the book covers on the article are public domain due to age. Would it be possible to go through and tag those that are? --Carnildo 23:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure: I believe all the covers on the page are PD, I think. I can find a list of those which are not, and I will take care of that. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 1). Of the 40, 17 redlinks and another 6 are unlinked. Criteria says: A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links). 2). Are the first 14 tabular and the rest in list form because of a lack of images? I feel they all need to be in the table regardless. - Sorry, Ian ≡ talk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) All issues resolved. This is a top list: well linked, referenced, well laid out, comprehensive and useful. A credit to the author. Strong support -- Ian ≡ talk 05:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the redlinks is, frankly, lack of availability of many of the later Oz books (out of print), and thus they are harder to find to read to write about. As to the images, many of the later books are still copyrighted, so I'm not sure if this is ok for a FLC, since it does fall under fair use. Any opinions? [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the {{bookcover}} tag is fine for all the images. The FLC criteria only asks for "acceptable copyright status". To quote from WP:Copyrights: In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). -- Ian ≡ talk 01:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{bookcover}} clearly covers the fair-use use of such images in a list like this. --Carnildo

SupportOppose -- doesn't seem to be complete. The first 21 are comprehensive, but then the others seem to be lost. I would prefer supporting a complete list, and sadly the above info is incomplete (due to unavoidable causes mentioned above). =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Its much much better, but would still like to see the titles of the book having an article of their own. I'll lend my support once those links are inked. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: Good stuff, and much better for the having dealt with the above comments already, but (i) section 2.2 ("Other non-canon Oz works by "Royal Historians" ") now looks the poor cousin on section 2.1 - can you make the style the same? Can you source bookcovers for these books too? (ii) Section 3 says entitled "Others (a partial list)" - why is this a partial list? Is it a selection, in which case what are the criteria, or is it just incomplete? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put the others in a table, and changed "Others" to "Altenate Oz" because thats what all of them are. I will try and soursce the covers. I'd like to say I scanned the from my extensive Oz book collection, but that would be a lie. Most of them were borrowed from WelcomeToOz.net. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 17:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks - but now the formatting of the various tables differs - please could you make them consistent. You still haven't explained the selection criteria for section 4, "some books which deal with alternate views of Oz" - which ones are included and why? Why are the others missed out? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been on vacation the past week. I'm working on "consistency" of the tables, but as to the "alternate Oz" section, I've never really been fond of it. It was there when I began editing the article, and I feel it's never going to be on par with the other sections. The only reason it's there is probably the popularity of the "Wicked" books and their die-hard fans, and the historical notablity of Volkov's work. Most of Volkov's books aren't even available in English. Due to their apocryphal nature, I would not be against removing the whole thing. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I may be the one who created this list, and originally I did not wish to include apocryphal titles. But after somebody else submitted Gregory Maguire, I realised that some of the apocryphal titles are so well known in their own right - some have even been bestsellers - that they ought to be at least mentioned and put into the context of the list. It is virtually impossible to make a comprehensive list of all Oz apocrypha, and much of it is truly esoteric. I probably have about 100 such titles on my bookshelves right now. The titles currently listed under "Alternate" in this Wikipedia article, are most likely the most independently successful, comercial and well known of the Oz apocrypha, as far as that is possible to guage. By the way, if I'm allowed a vote here, I SUPPORT. --Woggly 06:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dsmdgold 15:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/The_Oz_books&oldid=1138489161"