Talk:The War on Britain's Jews?

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / Documentary

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Needed improvements

According to the editing guidelines for films, the next section following the lead should be a plot summary. Now I don't think the heading "Plot" is appropriate for a documentary, but I can't easily think of a satisfactory alternative. "Outline" is about the best I can think of for now. (Maybe I'll mention something on the WP:FILM project page.)

In any case, what the article has at the moment is neither a plot nor an outline, but a selection from Littlejohn's Daily Mail rant. I have therefore put the bulk of this section into a new subsection "Littlejohn's view", which accurately describes what it is.

Ideally, we need to get someone with a copy of the film to write a "plot"/"outline"/whatever section according to the guidelines for film articles. I saw the film when it was first broadcast, but I don't trust my memory enough to write an accurate summary.
--NSH001 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up note: Since writing the above, I've looked at several other documentary film articles, and it seems that "Synopsis" is the preferred term. --NSH001 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review quotes are too long

I really don't see how we can justify using quite this much material lifted word-for-word (in fact, simply copy-pasted, as the presence of typos such as "antiSemitism" and "Milky bars" shows) from the newspaper reviews. The Times extract is about 250 words, and the Telegraph one not far short of 400. The only WP-sourced content is to say "In [paper], [journalist] said" before each one, which seems almost absurdly inadequate. I very nearly deleted both extracts on sight, but felt it would be better if someone with knowledge of the programmes could edit the comments down to something more akin to the Guardian review in the same section. 86.132.138.9 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, not signed in. Loganberry (Talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are about the right length for what the article will be, once a proper "Synopsis" section is written. My natural preference is for brevity and clarity, so I have some sympathy for your point. On the other hand, I didn't want to miss important points made by the reviewers, and I wanted to ensure that the quotes were a fair summary of the reviews. I hope the result is a reasonable compromise between these conflicting objectives. Unfortunately these are direct quotes, so either the typos have to stay in, or (sic)s or [square brackets]s have to be inserted. If you have suggestions for improvement, by all means offer them here.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also represent only the negative reviews. In the interests of NPOV, positive reviews should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]