Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Newman/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 01:25, 3 April 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Angmering, Josiah Rowe, Bodnotbod, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

I am nominating this featured article for review because -- despite the high quality of writing -- there are some glaring gaps. Specifically, his notable and controversial role as NFB commissioner, where Newman actively worked to suppress politically sensitive works by French Canadian filmmakers (please see the chapter devoted to him in a book cite at Talk:Sydney_Newman, which offers a good overview). Furthermore, in his roles as head of the NFB, and in positions at the CRTC, CBC and Secretary of State, Newman would have been in a position to shape audiovisual policy: there's no analysis of that. Overall, the article focuses rather dotingly on his role in British TV, while his senior positions in his native Canada are mentioned only briefly; or in the case of his leading and controversial role in political censorship in Quebec, not at all. I believe the article fails to meet criteria 1b, 1c as well as 1d, in that it is obviously not comprehensive, thoroughly researched and has a geographical/culture bias towards his UK work. I have added a more balanced perspective to the article lede and intend to do more work on it in the near future. But I leave it to those with experience in these matters as to whether or not this article should be delisted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to the two images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly true that there could be a lot more on his later Canadian career, and we should work to address this. I wrote most of the article, and I must confess that the reason it focuses so much on his British television career is because British television is all I know about, and all the sources I had really covered. But if there are good sources for the later Canadian work, we must certainly make use of them. Angmering (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained to Angmering on his Talk page, I'd be glad to help as Canadian film and TV is an area I'm knowledgeable in, but I'm just a little swamped off-wiki right now. I'll do what I can, as soon as I can, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll also have a stab at improving it this week, and we'll see how we go! Angmering (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My only concern is relying too much on a ref like Historicist, which is just a blog and may not even be RS. Have you tried a Google book search yet, as I'd suggested? In addition to the Evans cite, which I had added, Newman's role in Canada is documented in other books that have a limited preview on Google such as"Canadian content: culture and the quest for nationhood". Do have a look. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have put one other Google Books cite in there so far. In theory I was hoping to replace / expand the blog refs during the week with more reliable sources, but I thought it was a good start in expanding the text. Angmering (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a good go at this over the last couple of days and tried to expand it as best I can. I think the section on his Chairmanship of the NFB is now much more representative, and I have also tried to beef up the section on his earlier Canadian work at the CBC somewhat. I have also updated and added references, and broken up the old "Critical analysis" section, which wasn't really very Wikipedia-like. One thing that does concern me is that I have probably written most of the article in British English, when of course by rights it ought to be in Canadian English, so it will need a Canadian editor to go through and fix any errors of that sort. But I think it is at least coming along? Angmering (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's much better. There's still more to do regarding the political context. I think. I believe Evans makes clear that the problem with On est au coton wasn't just its misrepresentation of management's position on the textile industry but the fact that the film included calls for revolution from two FLQ members?! Obviously, detail should go in the film articles not here, but I do think we need to make clearer that a number of Newman's decisions were justified in his and the board's mind by the highly charged war-like atmosphere of the October Crisis. I wasn't aware that Brault self-released Les Ordes, I DO know that Newman's successor (and assistant commissioner during his tenure) André Lamy played a role in unbanning most or all of these films and I think that ought to be mentioned briefly. I'll try to help moreShawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lamy's role in the banning and subsequent un-banning of these films is now in the article, as is further mention of why Newman considered these films so controversial and didn't want to release them. I don't know if there's much more than can be added to the NFB section now? Angmering (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one would never have dreamed of taking it to an FA review if it looked like this. I think you've done an outstanding job on this and all the other related articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's been a while since I was involved in Featured Articles. What is that, and how do I do it? Angmering (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I'm an idiot! You linked to the page which explains all... Angmering (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now done. Angmering (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm afraid that it still needs some work . Alt text should describe the visual appearance of the image, giving information that can be verified simply by looking at the image (see WP:ALT). It typically shouldn't contain dates or context or proper names (see WP:ALT) and shouldn't repeat the caption (see WP:ALT). Please see WP:ALT for advice about that portrait. At first this may all seem like a pain, but it doesn't take much work once you get the hang of it: just pretend you're describing the image over the phone to someone who wants to know what they're missing if they read only the caption and other text. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another go - any better? Angmering (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, much better, but there are still some phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image, and which need to be reworded or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT. These phrases are "Screen grab from a 1980s film interview", "Speaking to an off-camera interviewer", "digital", "from the mid-2000s", "closed former theatre", and "Northern England". Also, please remove "in a white room with a pot plant in the background" as per WP:ALT and WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending text. Angmering (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:Sydneynewman.JPG runs into problems with the notorious WP:NFCC #8. We don't actually need to see a picture of him to understand his life and work, unless you're going to comment on his fashion sense or style. Anyway, as #8 is probably overprescriptive, personally I'm OK with its use here. Stricter reviewers may disagree.
 * My understanding (which may be incorrect or outdated) was that for deceased individuals for whom it is reasonable to assume that no free photograph exists, it was acceptable to use a single fair-use image for the purposes of identification. Identification of the subject is generally considered a primary encyclopedic function, isn't it?  When there's a possibility of getting a free image (as there is for most living people) it makes sense to exclude non-free images, but I don't understand why that would apply in this case.  If "stricter reviewers" do think that this usage is inappropriate, I'd like it if they could explain why. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other image is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really criticism, but I feel the article could benefit from a couple more images in the latter half of the article.I know how hard it can be to get the right image, but there ought to be some available of important projects worked on, maybe some images of Newman at different ages? Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is I can't think of how we could get copyright-free images of Newman from anywhere... There are already possible issues with the single image we have of him, as the above discussion shows. As for important projects he worked on, the same debate over whether fair use would cover it applies, although I suppose it might be possible to get some sort of fair use Doctor Who or NFB images. Angmering (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, reliable sources and comprehensiveness.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll )  07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The commentary/work has died out here, so prodding for more opinions  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll )  07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to say that I am very willing and hopefully able to continue to work on the article. The only reason I haven't done so for the past couple of weeks is simply because nobody had raised any further issues with it in the above review, and those who had raised issues were apparently satisfied that they had been resolved, as you can see. Angmering (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - After reviewing the cur diff from the date of this FAR nomination, I think that the comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. Other issues appear to have been minor and have been addressed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as original FAR nominator. Yes, as I stated above, a while back, I'm very pleased with the work done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not ready for keep, the article has numerous MOS issues and needs a MOS tuneup. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed most of the MOS issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit ordinary, but on the "Keep" side, I think.
 * The dash, common term and date-link scripts had plenty of work to do. It's still overlinked: work permit, Canadian Government, science fiction, a time machine larger on the inside than the out [all piped?], production assistant,
 * Is it in Canadian English? If so, "program". Tony   (talk)  08:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.