Nelvana was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 5, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 23, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

WikiProject Films     (Rated Start-Class)
	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is within the scope of the Filmmaking task force.
Improving this article: See how this article can be improved to B-Class status. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: |B-Class-1 <!-- Referencing & citations --> = |B-Class-2 <!-- Coverage & accuracy --> = |B-Class-3 <!-- Structure --> = |B-Class-4 <!-- Grammar --> = |B-Class-5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = and assess the article against each criterion using "yes" or "no".

WikiProject Companies	(Rated B-Class, Low-importance)	CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject CompaniesCompanies articles
Companies portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Companies 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Canada / TV shows / Ontario	(Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)	CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Canada portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is also supported by WikiProject Canadian TV shows. This article is also supported by WikiProject Ontario.

WikiProject Toronto	(Rated B-Class, Low-importance)	TorontoWikipedia:WikiProject TorontoTemplate:WikiProject TorontoToronto articles
Toronto portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Media	(Rated B-Class, Low-importance)	MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
Journalism portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Myanmar News Agency, Lisa Sylvester (CNN reporter) Verify: Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Cleanup: Media influence, Video game culture NPOV: Content (media and publishing)

[edit] older entries

At this point, I think the content of this article's a little one-sided (as far as the list of shows is concerned). At least it's a famous studio—from Canada no less—so why not let it have some history tidbits like what's on WDFA, H-B, Fleischer Studios and Filmation?

Last year, I created the pages on Nelvana's founders: Hirsh, Loubert and Smith. I feel this is the only history Wikipedia has on this studio...

So maybe I'll continue from this point soon. --Slgrandson 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates?

Maybe because Nelvana's empire has a lot of films and shows under its belt, along with it being a famous animation studio, I feel there should be at least three templates covering the studio and its history:

• {{Nelvana}} for use on the main article and pages on its notable figures;
• {{Nelvana films}} for films which Nelvana made or distributed, or whose production they were involved in;
• {{Nelvana TV shows}} obviously for use on articles concerning series made, in whole or in part, by the company.

I might as well give these three a try next week. --Slgrandson 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I've thought of the possibility of another one: {{Nelvana specials}}. --Slgrandson 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested link

As I'm improving this page (per AndyZ's comments at WP:PR/A), I wonder how useful this link will become:

• The Toughest SOBs in Business by John Daly, The Globe and Mail

The last part of this article contains useful info about Michael Hirsh that could come in handy, as the pages on him and his company approach their next edits.

(NB: Contains some mild language at start of page.) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word choices

In the second on the 1990's, a sentence reads: Purists of the original Japanese version criticised the resulting English dub, which was broadcast on Kids WB! in the U.S. market and Teletoon in Canada.

I would say this is a poor word choice, because it's implying a bias. It seems to be saying "While the changes were minimal, some whiney people complained about it." Is it even a neccesary comment for this article? Yes, there was a lot of internet furor, but as a history of the company, it's a very minor note. Meiran 01:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

It meets the standard. Well written in most areas, although in some, the prose is less than brilliant - for example, the lead sentence doesn't flow too well. A lot more citations are needed (page references for most sentences will be needed, and it'll be much easier for others to verify), and try to find another book to source from. Well done on providing fair use rationale for every image. CloudNine 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I was reviewing this while you were typing your review. Anyway, I'll say what I was going to say anyways: There are an immense amount of redlinks in this article. Please, please, please either de-link them or create the articles in question. The middle part of the article has more red links than blue. --PresN 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh ;) Looking over it, I agree on that point. CloudNine 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution rights

In the fourth paragraph of the article, where it mentions what shows Nelvana has distributed, the vast majority of information appears to be untrue. From what I know, the only correct info there is that Nelvana has distributed The Fairly OddParents internationally, and My Friend Rabbit is produced by Nelvana itself anyway. Fifthship (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nelvana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns with this article as follows:

• In the history section the 1970's and the first half of the 1980's sub sections are very sparsely referenced. The block quote isn't referenced and I see three in-line citations for roughly 10 paragraphs of information. That is not enough.
• The Franchises section has one in-line citation, there is a lot of information here that should be cited better.
• The Logos section is totally unreferenced.
• Refs 2, 10, and 29 are dead links that will need to be repaired. External link from the Canadian Jewish News is also a dead link that will need to be removed or fixed.
• All of the images are copyrighted. Per WP:NFC it is necessary to use Free images, images that are copyrighted are not considered free use. I recognize that there are Fair Use rationales on all the images but that does not mean we are off the hook. We must strive to use free images wherever possible and only use non-free images if nothing else is available and then sparingly. The article is liberally sprinkled with copyrighted images. The GA Criteria wants images so it is appropriate to have images but editors should use copyrighted images only when necessary. Personally I don't think this many images are necessary. Certainly the logo at the beginning and one, perhaps two other images are sufficient for GA. The rest should be removed regardless of Fair Use rationale. I welcome discussion and dissenting opinions on this matter.
• There are several red links that should either be delinked or articles should be made for them.

These concerns are sufficient for me to hold the article for work to be done. If no work is undertaken in the next week the article will be delisted from GA status. H1nkles (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My concerns have not been addressed and as such I will delist the article from GA because it does not meet the GA Criteria in regards to Images and references. H1nkles (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Is an entire section devoted to the minor differences in the logos notable? I'd be in favour of removing the section altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.206.210 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)