Talk:Famous Studios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famous Studios was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 22, 2008

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: 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 to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

	Animation Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Animation. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Just a few quibbles about MOS and prose.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is workable and readable, needs to move see also above references

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Question about the website reference, the current ownership section could use some source citations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   one image is up for delection, I am not sure the other image is small enough to qualify for fair use.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• The lead feels a bit skimpy to me, perhaps another sentence or two in each paragraph?
• Fleischer Studios dissolution section, the first sentence has two "sucessful"s in it, which is repetative. Consider rewording one.
• One thing I noticed was that the prose is a bit wordy. Probably a good copyedit before you take it to FAC (if that is the plan) would be a good idea. The prose is readable, and thus easily passes the GA criteria, but the FA criteria is "engaging, even brilliant" which is a bit harder standard to meet.
• MOS issue. Usually "see also" comes before the references.
• The Current ownership section is unsourced. Right now, it's not so controversial that it needs sourcing, but if you go to FA, you'll need it.
• Likewise in the sourcing department, what makes http://www.cartoonresearch.com/paramount.html a reliable souce?
• I'm not a fair use expert, but I think you need to keep the fair use images to a small size.
• I note that Image:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg is under deletion discussion.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here? Anything being done? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since nothing above has been addressed and I've had no replies to my query, I am going to fail this articles GAN. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)