Talk:The Elstree Project

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.

HowardBerry (talk · contribs) / The Elstree Project This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Declaration)

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:

Did you know... that The Elstree Project is an ongoing oral history of the studios of Elstree and Borehamwood, with interviewees including Brian Blessed, Steven Spielberg and Roger Moore?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Elstree Project.

Wikipedia

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 2 February 2014 by reviewer Michaelzeng7 (talk · contribs).

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

To-do list

Overall, 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.

--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter quote from the BFI

Philip 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source question

I'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)[reply]

Sorted this now :) Howie ☎ 21:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]