Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 In progress Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs:, could you please take a look at the article talk page and the diff history of the article's edits over the last 48 hours in addition to the ANI case related to same? [1] I think that in relation to reviewing the article for GA status, it might be important to note needed changes to the article for the sake of accuracy are being ignored and argued over. Thank you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

David - in light of the fact that this review has been indefinitely on hold, and considering recent events, I'm withdrawing the article's current GA nomination. I'll consider re-nomination at a later date. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point, noting that there are periods of article instability from time-to-time, and considering that part of that is driven by the fact that the series has not yet concluded, it makes sense to put GA nom on hold until after it has concluded. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Butler, I thought I'd saved my review months ago, but apparently the edit didn't go through. I'm in the process of re-reviewing the article (sadly didn't keep my off-wiki draft); if the article status remains unstable then I'll note it, but at this point considering you've had it in the queue for months I think it'd be a more productive use of time to give feedback rather than have it go to the bottom of the nom list again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

David - No worries on the save/edit. I honestly hadn't thought about it until a week ago or so. I respect your feedback, so even if it's not for GA status, it will be duly welcomed. TIA. (Should I replace the nom that I removed, or just let it go?) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the template to the talk page; it's not listen on the nominations page at present but I will see if that repopulates it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs The nomination is on the list, but as a review-in-progress. Are you still intending to review this? If not, I think you can G7 it? -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Have the disagreements with this article settled out so it's in a relatively stable position? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Yes - it has been stable for some time now. And I'm available to address anything that is necessary for review. Just let me know. I'm subscribed to notices on this. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments as follows:

• General/layout:
  • Covers main expected topics of a TV series article (premise, episodes, development, distribution and reception.)
    • The lead doesn't really cover the reception of the show, and doesn't really detail much of the production besides the crowdfunding aspects and the initial concept and writing.
  • If there's an overall issue with the article at present, it seems like it hasn't been effectively updated. There's issues throughout where it seems like a lack of information about the present state of the show; for example "international distribution" only mentions season 1 and 2 getting dubbed or subtitled, with no update for seasons 3. Likewise, the critical reception section feels scattershot and not effectively organized, mostly focusing on initial impressions when it was an underground hit and not any greater attention over the course of its run. (And only mentions one season on Rotten Tomatoes.) Viewership, awards and accolades: this all feels like it's missing info.
• References:
  • References are inconsistently formatted; you've got some websites or newspapers listed in the publisher field when they should be in the work/website field (c.f. Deseret News), some works wikilinked in some instances, not in others (c.f. Christian Post). Current ref 88 is missing retrieval dates, Ref 89 has a date in the author field, and there's some bare URLs or improperly fleshed-out fields (c.f. Ref 40, 67.)
  • I don't think Aleteia should be used for anything other than opinion; it's a for-profit ideological institution.
  • The Daily Universe as a campus newspaper likewise I don't think is a great source to be using, let alone repeatedly.
  • What makes Eternity News, Techbuzz, Religion News Service, ChurchLeaders.com, ChristianHeadlines.com, Movieguide, TheDirect, TheCatholicSpirit.com, and Rush to Press reliable sources?
  • Spotchecks: checked statements attributed to this version refs # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 19, 20, 23, 36, 37, 45, 48, 51, 57, 67, 86, 94, 106
    • Ref 1 is used to support Noting there had never been a multi-season, episode-based portrayal of Jesus and his disciples that could be "binge-watched" in the same way as shows on streaming mediums such as Netflix but that source doesn't really talk about trying to create a bingeable Netflix show, just says "using an episodic formula not unlike what a viewer might see on popular networks or streaming services".
    • Translation into as many as 600 languages is being funded by the Come and See Foundation. really should be updated given that this is two years out of date, and also implies that doing the translation is essentially locked.
    • Ref 20 is used to support At the end of January 2019, the first fundraising round had raised over $10.2 million from more than 16,000 investors for the project, which surpassed Mystery Science Theater 3000 as the top crowdfunded TV series project. Each investor received equity in "The Chosen LLC", which is regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)., but the source gives the number as $11 million, doesn't mention the LLC or MST3K.
    • Ref 3 is used to cite the average contribution, but given that it's three years out of date, this needs additional context.
    • Ref 67 is used to support The finale opened in theaters on February 2, 2023, and was #1 at the box office with $1.67 million. but it doesn't show it being #1 at the box office at all from what I can tell (and I don't see how it would be with a $1.67 million day-one gross.)
• Media:
  • The images all use links to a press site which isn't archived and is now a 404 link. I've checked the updated press site and there's no information on CC licensing, but the pages were verified at the time so they should be acceptable.
  • Infobox image reasonably meets PD-text threshold.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I'll go over your comments and see about getting these addressed. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Review response

@David Fuchs: Thanks for your review and comments. I have edited the article and tried to address each item. Note that after both removing some items and shifting others, the source numbers from your original comments are no longer valid. I also did a complete audit of the sources to make sure formatting was consistent throughout. What follows is a list of what I addressed relative to your specific comments. If anything is unclear, unacceptable, requires additional attention, or anything else, just let me know and I'll get on it quickly.

The lead doesn't really cover the reception of the show, and doesn't really detail much of the production besides the crowdfunding aspects and the initial concept and writing.

• I did a complete rework of lead to remove some redundant items and unnecessary detail (covered elsewhere) and added coverage of production and reception.

If there's an overall issue with the article at present, it seems like it hasn't been effectively updated. There's issues throughout where it seems like a lack of information about the present state of the show; for example "international distribution" only mentions season 1 and 2 getting dubbed or subtitled, with no update for seasons 3. Likewise, the critical reception section feels scattershot and not effectively organized, mostly focusing on initial impressions when it was an underground hit and not any greater attention over the course of its run. (And only mentions one season on Rotten Tomatoes.) Viewership, awards and accolades: this all feels like it's missing info.

• Some of this is due to being limited to what is available in reliable sources. It goes in spurts, and outside of self-published sites and fan sites, there's not as much available yet on season 3, and even less on season 4. So I'm working with what's available instead of trying to "force it".
• I didn't see the critical reception section the same way. My line of thinking was cover the fact that it is largely an underground phenomenon - even now it is mostly panned by mainstream Hollywood sources. So I started there, and led into a discussion of positive and of course negative. Then actual reviews, followed by awards. (After looking at this flow a little more, I did move the viewership subsection up to before the reviews as that may segue better. It may even be better just working it into the content just prior.)
• RE: Rotton Tomatoes - since we don't generally use audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes, I only used what has been long-standing general consensus in TV - the reviews. Unfortunately, there's only one season that has a review rating for this season, leaving three possibilities - leave it as-is because that's what's available, take it out as unnecessary or incomplete, or include audience ratings. I don't necessarily have a strong opinion towards any of those so I'd defer to what you think it should be. I did make some revisions to the article overall to smooth it out so that it doesn't give the impression that it's missing updated info.
• Awards - I am reworking this and I think it's probably time to display this in a table format. There are a couple of additional awards to add so I think a table format will make it readable/accessible (in progress) Done

References are inconsistently formatted; you've got some websites or newspapers listed in the publisher field when they should be in the work/website field (c.f. Deseret News), some works wikilinked in some instances, not in others (c.f. Christian Post). Current ref 88 is missing retrieval dates, Ref 89 has a date in the author field, and there's some bare URLs or improperly fleshed-out fields (c.f. Ref 40, 67.)

• Some of this may be due to using the visual editor's citation insert, and some of it was me missing certain edits/additions by other editors in the interim while waiting for the review. I addressed the bare URLs and the other specific refs mentioned. Then, I did a full audit of all sources to validate links, fill in empty parameters, make sure parameters were correct (such as faulty author info from automatically generated citations), cleanup the publisher/work/website fields and wikilink all instances that have an available article (also made sure all citations that have a source used elsewhere were listed consistently), and made sure all sources had retrieval dates.

I don't think Aleteia should be used for anything other than opinion; it's a for-profit ideological institution. & The Daily Universe as a campus newspaper likewise I don't think is a great source to be using, let alone repeatedly.

• No disagreement from me on either of these. Eliminated...

What makes Eternity News, Techbuzz, Religion News Service, ChurchLeaders.com, ChristianHeadlines.com, Movieguide, TheDirect, TheCatholicSpirit.com, and Rush to Press reliable sources?

• Some of these slipped in unawares in the interim between the GA nom and the actual review. Most are unacceptable sources, some were added as bare URL refs (so I know that wasn't me), and frankly, I just missed that they were slipped in. In several cases they were used as a second source (the statement/fact already has another source). Where a second source existed, I removed the unacceptable source, leaving the reliable source. In a couple of cases, I removed the entire statement that was being cited. I purged any use of the following questioned sources: Eternity news, Techbuzz, TheDirect, TheCatholicSpirit, and replaced the churchleaders.com source with something similar from the Salt Lake Tribune.

• Christianheadlines.com is part of crosswalk.com, which is part of Salem Media Group. I would consider Salem Media to be a reliable source. All of the Christianheadlines.com stuff has now been duplicated on the crosswalk.com site, so anything from christianheadlines.com was either replaced in my audit, or updated to the corresponding crosswalk.com URL.

• I will defend a couple of these as useful. The Religion News Service doesn't show a reason to not be used as a reliable source for citing statements of fact. Likewise, Movieguide is a reliable source in Christian media circles.

• Rush to Press covers Christian publishing and is primarily press releases (so a primary source). In this case, it's only being used to support author and date of release. But I'm open to taking it out if that's better.

Ref 1 is used to support Noting there had never been a multi-season, episode-based portrayal of Jesus and his disciples that could be "binge-watched" in the same way as shows on streaming mediums such as Netflix but that source doesn't really talk about trying to create a bingeable Netflix show, just says "using an episodic formula not unlike what a viewer might see on popular networks or streaming services".

• I think that over time, some citations were moved around or edited, and the "binge" part of it comes from another source. But in my rework of the lead to make room for other stuff without ending up with an overly long lead, I ended up reworking it significantly and that part came out anyway. (Everything not cited in the lead, BTW, is covered in the article and is specifically cited there)

Translation into as many as 600 languages is being funded by the Come and See Foundation. really should be updated given that this is two years out of date, and also implies that doing the translation is essentially locked.

• It essentially is locked - the "600 languages" is part of their current pitch and hasn't changed. I saw a video interview from late 2023 that still uses this same number. I wouldn't expect this number to change anytime soon as it will likely take them a decade to achieve it. (Note: that's actually a similar case with other numbers that circulate around - they are using numbers from seasons 1 and 2 in even current interviews, so when quoted in a secondary source, the viewership numbers they use are from previous seasons)

Ref 20 is used to support At the end of January 2019, the first fundraising round had raised over $10.2 million from more than 16,000 investors for the project, which surpassed Mystery Science Theater 3000 as the top crowdfunded TV series project. Each investor received equity in "The Chosen LLC", which is regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)., but the source gives the number as $11 million, doesn't mention the LLC or MST3K.

• Addressed this by revising text to more correctly state what is in the source, and located the source of the MST part of it. Removed anything not specifically stated. I do recall where the LLC part and similar info came from - it was early in the article's history and the source was the actual SEC filing, which is a primary source and rather non-specific. I think that source was replaced along the way, but the sentence wasn't revised.

Ref 3 is used to cite the average contribution, but given that it's three years out of date, this needs additional context.

• Put a date on this and moved it into a place where it flows from the previous crowdfunding through Angel (which is when that data is from) to now what is the Come and See Foundation (for which the average contribution information is not available). I haven't found any reliable source that states the average contribution more recently.

Ref 67 is used to support The finale opened in theaters on February 2, 2023, and was #1 at the box office with $1.67 million. but it doesn't show it being #1 at the box office at all from what I can tell (and I don't see how it would be with a $1.67 million day-one gross.)

• Got rid of this altogether for two reasons - first, the cited source issue. But also, because somewhere along the line, a table was added that displays theatrical release dates and gross receipts. Repeating the same information in prose is simply redundant.

Sorry for the length, but I wanted to reference each item specifically. Feel free to reformat the above if it makes things easier to read or more compliant. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding two notes to the above - I reworked the lead, covering the key points without being too long, and I converted the awards/accolades section to a table display (adding the more recent nominations and awards). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Accepting the caveat that you can't flesh out some sections better due to sourcing, I think the reception section still needs work. I'm not sure why there's a "reviews" section that is separate from the general reception, because critical reception is generally what we base these on, and it's weird for it to sum up reception (including negative reception) but then restate it from critics afterwards. The reviews section also mostly just lists reviewers and stray comments from them rather than being a cohesive and organized summary. WP:RECEPTION has some pointers on this; I would suggest that the critic opinion get mixed in with the commentary on its general popularity rather than trying to separate them, especially if what's present in the reviews section is most of what's out there from reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 09:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs:I definitely see what you mean. Over time, there were some rewrites of this section after the B-class review, and then again after the previous GA review. It kind of over-evolved based on those - the pendulum swung from under written to over-written. I have hacked it down by merging duplicate thoughts and copy-editing the whole thing to get it from scattershot to something more fluid/coherent. Here's a breakdown of the progression I hope the c/e conveys:

• Point out that it started largely underground, being panned by mainstream coverage. After being picked up by Peacock, viewership grew from there. (Eliminated viewership subsection and moved this information into this opening paragraph.
• Coverage of reviews that point out the show's insularity and largely Christian audience, although it has been noted to have mainstream crossover potential.
• Coverage of its authenticity, acting, production value, etc.
• Coverage of negative reception.

Obviously, I'll re-edit as needed, but I think this is much better now. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thanks. Passing the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for your review and all your help along the way, David. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Status query

David Fuchs, Butlerblog, where does this review stand? There were a few strikes on this page early last month, and a few recent edits to the article; is there good progress being made? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Blue I am still working on the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)