# Talk:Gnome Motion Picture Company

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)

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

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)
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)

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

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