Jump to content

Talk:Famous Studios

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeFamous Studios was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

GA review

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

For Waxworker

[edit]

I hope you like this @Waxworkereven though I did trouble in the past I changed I hope you like this edit. 173.68.84.93 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]