Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations/Addition/Calculus

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)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] 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)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Its not complete but it has certainly enough information to make it useful, and yes the squares are either outdated or very strict on how complete the authors want a page to be to be considered "complete".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)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] 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)
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] 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 [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 11:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] 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)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support - This book's unique design and (at the least) decent content makes for a nice feature. -within focus 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] 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)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] 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)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] 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)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] 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  &#124; talk 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] 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)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment Criterion number 9 for Featured book says "Not...contain...red links." Zginder 12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] 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)