Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations/Addition/Organic Chemistry

Organic Chemistry

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