Talk:Famous Studios

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)

For Waxworker
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)