Talk:The Elstree Project
Latest comment: 10 years ago by HowardBerry in topic Source question
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | A fact from The Elstree Project appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
To-do list
editOverall, this is a good start. Here are the main things to do for improvement:
- More references. If possible, cite everything that isn't common knowledge.
- Try providing inline citations in the "Notable interviewees" section. Some of the people are already cited elsewhere in the article, so it's okay to use those citations in the interviewees section.
- When expanding the article with new information, remember to cite everything. Keep WP:NPOV in check.
- Make sure your sources are reliable. WordPress blogs and other sources where anyone can write anything are not reliable.
Twitter quote from the BFI
editPhilip Cross has removed the quote from the BFI's twitter, stating Twitter is not a reliable source in the edit summary. While generally I would agree, I would like the opportunity to discuss this as the Wikipedia guidelines on this state that it can sometimes be a reliable source. As it clearly comes from a third party not connected to the project and is of a verified Twitter account from a well established and reliable organisation, I think this makes the source itself reliable and meets the criteria stated in the guidelines. Howie ☎ 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The point I removed reads as follows: "The film has been described as 'like being on set with Stanley Kubrick' by the BFI on Twitter." Quite apart from the source issue, I read "sometimes" as 'most of the time, no', and it isn't an especially original quote. Philip Cross (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- For the British Film Institute to describe a documentary made thirty years after a film has been made, and over ten years after the death of the director, as "like being on set" with him is particularly original and quite an endorsement. If it is not "especially original", I would like to see examples of where this is repeated in the case of other documentaries. Also this doesn't answer my points about it following the guidelines of being from a verified account, wherein it could therefore be considered to be reliable. Sometimes does not mean no, so you have assumed this. Please, let's actually discuss this! Howie ☎ 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- A piece of information being from a reliable source does not mean it has to be included. I have just watched both the 17 and 55 minute versions of the documentary, and it is a good piece of work. But I cannot see how the BFI user (whose status as an authoritative source is unclear) could have come to the conclusion s/he did. If it been a comment made about the Vivian Kubrick documentary shot while The Shining was in production (it has been included in at least one DVD edition of the film), I would agree with the statement. This work though, inevitably takes a retrospective approach, so the the BFI assertion does not seem valid. "On set with Stanley Kubrick" falsely suggests the present tense, and thus misleads anyone who has not seen either version.
- I have reason to believe you might have a conflict of interest in discussing The Elstree Project, but cannot be more explicit. Philip Cross (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Philip, now you've explained your reasoning it does make sense and I am more inclined to agree with you.
- With regards to your second point, you may notice that there is already a declaration at the top of this page to say that I am involved in this project. I have been open and honest about this from the very start. As such the only changes I have made to the page since it passed WP:AFC are to add verifiable sources of information as suggested by Michaelzeng7 in his summary following my AFC request, and I have not added any additional content. I will not be adding information otherwise. Howie ☎ 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Source question
editI've looked at the guidelines under WP:SELFSOURCE, and I'm still not too sure if this is permissible or not because I think it's open to interpretation... There are currently no third party news sources about The Elstree Project's interview with Roger Moore, but the official site has a photo of the project team interviewing him. Is this allowed? Howie ☎ 21:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorted this now :) Howie ☎ 21:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)