Talk:Gnome Motion Picture Company

Gnome Motion Picture Company has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 16, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gnome Motion Picture Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 14:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a review shortly. Wizardman 14:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I found no issues the first read-through. I'll give this a second read-through tomorrow to make sure I didn't miss anything; I probably oversaturated myself on the review front. Wizardman 16:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some prose fixing and added a new image. I've not found a single scrap of supporting evidence that the company released any film, but it is still mentioned in catalogs and such that the releases were in December 1910. It is still a commonly held belief that the films were released. So Wikipedia has the leg up on most places because of it. It took me quite awhile to find out that all the advertisements and actual publications of the release dates were not true. The fact they appear in numerous publications and were pretty persistent in the Christmas season is probably why the company is still credited with the three releases even now. I spent probably 5-6 hours just exhausting and reading through the publications to find the information about Gnome, but they just disappeared in January 1911. The court matter was pretty difficult to find. Also - for some reason Archive.org is temporarily down as of this writing. It should be fixed soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found on read-through number two:

"Little is known of this film produced by the Gnome company. " That's true of all three of them as established earlier in the article, so this is redundant.
"This release was later cited by a later issue of The Nickelodeon." I'd remove one of the laters or reword, feels a bit repetitive.

I was originally going to question the two giant quotes, given that they encompass approximately a third of the article. On the copyright front however, they would be fine given that the paper it came from would certainly be PD. That and from how it reads it appears that it would be difficult to get the summaries across another matter, so I won't worry about it for GA status. Anyway, I'll put this on hold and will pass it when the above is fixed. Wizardman 22:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I decided to use the two published plots because these were endorsed and actually official plots that were (likely) written by Gnome for the purposes of advertising to patrons and exhibitors in advance of the expected release. This unfortunately is all that remains of the company, a bundle of hope and dreams that never manifested itself into a single release. A century has past, and still most databases credit the company with the three films. If anyone looks up the company, Wikipedia has the best information of any site - and am pleased by that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything checks out now, so the article passes GA status. Wizardman 12:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions