ProofreadPage

“ Announcements Page: namespace, status of pages I have made changes to the Proofreadpage software, that will allow users to visualize the status of all pages of a book, using colors, on the index page. A preview can be seen on fr:Livre:Jules Vallès - L'Enfant.djvu. This system works in combination with a new validation procedure, that is following the system used at de.ws. The new validation procedure requires that two different users proofread a page, and it is described here: fr:Aide:Qualité des pages. ”

“ Note that in order to create the /Editnotice page, I needed to disable JavaScript. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Transcluded (proofread) books cannot be exported It seems there is a bug turning proofread pages (like: Picturesque New Zealand and Picturesque New Zealand/Chapter 1) into books (the "Create a book" and "Download as PDF" functions) as it only uses the code from proofread pages - they are just transcluded . See: Wikisource talk:ProofreadPage#PDF and proofraed. ”

“ All O.K. re: Commons icon again this side now. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC) My hero. Just another heartfelt thank you GO3. It works! — Ineuw talk 05:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC) PROOFREADPAGE - Both the default and auto edit-summary texts based on status no longer being populated originally titled: On Page creation, "Not proofread" is not showing up in the Summary
Since I've been on a roll of success today, would it possible to display the default "Not proofread" in the Summary field when the page is created? This used to be so several software updates ago. ”

“ When corrections and formatting are complete, the page is marked as Proofread and is ready for the main namespace, leave the page as Not Proofread until it is done. Mark as Problematic if appropriate (e.g. damaged scan, missing image or characters that need special care) . ”

“ If you've worked on a page, but don't have time to finish, this is the status to use. (See all pages.) Proofread means proofread by one contributor. You have brought the page to the best condition you can where the text matches the scan and basic formatting is done, and are when you are reasonably happy with it. A Proofread page is ready for display to the casual reader—even if it has little errors in it. ”

“ So the newer scan is okay for proofreading. I can't help you with fixing the other DJVU file though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, I agree that the current scan, since seemingly there are not missing pages in it, is sufficient to go ahead with proofreading. Probably it would be better if someone could fix the scan of the original book (in order to use it instead of reprint publication) ; but since we seemingly could not do this right now (none of us has sufficient skills for this) —so we may stay on using the scan of the reprint edition, I think there's no any harm of this. ”

“ Hi Susan, by all means remove the "transcription project" tag for the proofread & transcluded works. It's really there to encourage people to do a little proofreading. Once a work has been transcluded, then the link to the source is available more logically from the work. The green symbol (and any of the companions , , in the series) are an old way to indicate how complete a work is. Now that we've got the Proofread extension, they're being phased out here. ”

“ What role does proofing play in Project Gutenberg?
A very big one!
Typists' work doesn't usually need many corrections, but unfortunately, scanners and OCR packages are far from perfect, and scanned text varies from "almost-right" down to "maybe I should consider typing instead of scanning". Proofing is the process that turns a scan into a readable e-text.
Proofing a typist's work is straightforward; you just read it, and keep an eye out for mistakes. ”

“ Jeremy Belknap, in his Papers, says that there are four things necessary to constitute a man: “first, he should build a house; second, he should write a book; third, he should get a child; fourth, he should plant a tree.”
Now, let us not only do all these things prescribed, but let us supplement them by four others, which the proof-reader thinks are just as, if not more, important; namely: let our chirography be readable, our spelling correct, our punctuation faultless, and our rhetoric such that “he who runs may read.” ”

“ So, yes, proofreading is needed. We also need to split the book into subpages. For Author:Robert Munro, I see that there are a couple of Index pages already loaded and waiting to be proofread. You can access them by clicking on the link "transcription project" on the Author page. The phrase "Digitized by Microsoft" is a watermark that they added at the time of doing the scan. Some editors here are erasing it before uploading the files. If it turns up in the OCR of a page I delete it, otherwise I just ignore it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC) re: tagging; best practices hi ”

“ The true proof-reader should not only be a practical printer, but he should be a lover of literature, familiar with the classics of all languages, with the results accomplished by science, and indeed with every subject that concerns his fellow-men. When an author prepares a work for the press, he often uses many abbreviations, his capitalization is frequently incorrect, his spelling occasionally not in accordance either with Worcester or Webster, his punctuation inaccurate, his historical and biographical statements careless, and his chirography frequently very bad. ”

“ Proof-reading.—In technical books especially, good proof-reading is essential. We use every effort to submit proofs which follow closely the original copy, but the experienced author knows that he himself cannot exercise too much care in proof-reading. The amount of damage which has been done to the reputation and sales of many otherwise excellent technical books, by carelessness in proof-reading, would astound the inexperienced author.
One set of galley and one set of page proofs which the author receives are marked with the printer's corrections, generally in green or red ink. ”

“ I say that too much is expected of the proof-reader. He is expected to take the babe of the author and put it in a suitable dress for the public. The author should do it. Now and then you get an idea of how badly copy is prepared when out of revenge some newspaper editor prints it as the author sends it in. The reader, when he reads that copy, printed as it is written, with a misuse of italics, a violation of the rules of composition, lack of punctuation, etc., is astonished that a man of education can be so careless. ”

“ I had (yet again) the transient error of proofreading status disappear after an edit to a page of the work. This rectified after another edit, but shouldn't have happened at all.
More seriously, look at both page 4 and the first page following the "Adv" pages. The page was "proofread" as "Without Text", but the editor is trying to list that page in Category:Without text, and the Index page for the book is showing the page in pink instead of grey. Something is badly screwed up somewhere, and it's going to really aggravate anyone doing proofreading. ”

“ We've usually considered changing the proofread status to be a highly significant change, implying a user proofreading against a scanned text. I don't see why a bot would need to mark proofread status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Proofreading against a scan can be done manually offline. The result can be uploaded in bulk via API instead of the standard page-by-page web interface. The bot is just like a CLI tool to post content.— Mpaa (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Mpaa, can PageQuality be applied through the API? ”

“ The imperfection is in the mind of the writer, not in the language—unless he can give a better example. If this author had omitted this section of his work, he would have shortened his book to the extent of half a page, and he would not have afforded a text for preaching against imperfection of mental training. If a thoroughly qualified proof-reader had suggested proper corrections, in the proper way, it must be that the matter would have been bettered; and every proof-reader should know how to make such suggestions. ”

“ Proofreading without pagescans is silly, because one person will do a few chapters and another person will do a few chapters, but they are like to be different editions. see User talk:70.240.250.38 for the most recent example. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Well, Using DJVU files and the Page: namespace is a good thing, but it is a different issue. What I ask here is 1. What status do we give to PG texts? Is it reliable enough to be considered as proofread? If a WS contributor proofread a PG text, do we consider that the text is proofread by two persons? ”

“ Times, however, have changed since, as the elder D'Israeli wrote. “it became the glory of the learned to be correctors of the press to eminent printers,” and to-day in every printing office the proofreader is found—an unobtrusive functionary, known to publishers, authors, editors and journalists, but for the most part unknown to the general reading public; a functionary who yet does useful, often valuable, and always indispensable work. The influence of good proof-reading upon the character of book, newspaper and general printing is too often underrated. ”

“ Nearly all manuscript copy is indebted to the compositor and proof-reader for the proper punctuation; and many errors in spelling, made by men who probably know better, but write hastily, are silently corrected in the printing-office. Contradictions, errors of fact, anachronisms, imperfect sentences, solecisms, barbarisms, are modestly pointed out to the author by the proof-reader’s “quære,” or by a carefully worded suggestion; and, most usually, the proof is returned without comment,—and none is needed,—corrected according to the proof-reader’s intimations. ”

“ The proof-reader is, however, or should be, perfectly callous to all captious criticisms and foolish comments; he need care nothing for “harshness” or other nonsense, provided his work is well and thoroughly done. Let no nervous or touchy man meddle with proof-reading.
For the especial benefit of our non-professional readers, we will here point out the usual routine in regard to proofs. The editor or publisher of a book or periodical sends to the printer such portions of reading-matter or manuscript as he can, from time to time, conveniently supply. ”

“ If any one is fortunate enough to have a first-class proof-reader in his employ, he will be foolish to let that reader go, if money—within reasonable bounds—will keep him. Fifty men may try to fill the place and fail before another really competent man is found.
10 A large proof-room should have its own foreman—not merely a head reader, but one actually in authority, just as any foreman should be, and with higher pay than the other readers have, and also with the chief responsibility. ”

“ Close attention should be given to this process of “revising”; it is not enough to see that a wrong letter has been taken out, and a right one put in; in the line where a change has been made, all the words should be compared, and also the line above and the line below a correction,—since in correcting an error among movable types, some of the types may move when they ought not, and get misplaced.
As what escapes the notice of one observer may be perceived by another, this second proof is again “read by copy” by another proof-reader and assistant, and a second time corrected and revised. ”

“ There is only one state defined by the proofreading extension and it currently covers 2 types of pages: those with no (original) text and those that, for whatever reason, are not considered necessary to be proofread. We could ask the maintainers to separate the two, but I think we can all see that that pagelist provides an adequate means of doing this. Can you adjust your listings to take this into account without marking that adverts as to be not proofread, Hesperion? That seems possible but difficult to do reliably. ”

“ On a certain large work published many years ago a man was employed as proof-reader at what was then excellent pay. When that work was revised he was still known as the principal proof-reader, but his work included final editing of the copy, as well as reading the proofs, which latter he did in a critical way, making such changes in the matter as he knew were necessary. For this work he received $75 a week, and the only men known to the present writer who were paid as much as the sum first mentioned did the same kind of work. ”

“ A proof-reader, on the contrary, can not choose his subjects. He must undertake what is ready for him, whether it be some ordinary work, using common words only, or a scientific book filled with unfamiliar words.59 Authors of scientific works often make abominable copy. They do not realize that the terminology so well known by them is not equally well known to the workers in printing-offices, and the most particular words are frequently written more carelessly than the common words in their manuscript. ”

“ As many blunders were made by the monks in transcribing and re-transcribing the ancient MSS., the assistance of the [21] corrector, or proof-reader, was as much needed then as now; the wrong words were erased with a sponge or with a knife, and the corrected words inserted. Solomon, three thousand years ago, said, “Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” This was uttered at a time when few read or studied, and when all books were in manuscript, the printer’s art being then unknown. To-day everybody reads, studies, and writes ”