Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spit the episode/season section?

I didn’t see this at first, but after looking through the article I realized that this show has nearly four seasons at this point. I think we should divide it to a separate article so it won’t fall into the “TL;DR” category if you know what I mean. I’m not familiar on what the requirements are to make the episode/season section a disunite article, but seeing it has quite a few seasons perhaps we do so? Wolfquack (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There is actually a standard for making that decision: MOS:TVSPLIT. At this point, the article doesn't meet this standard. In fact, I recently nominated the season 1 and 2 articles for deletion as they don't conform to this standard and a split was never discussed. They are exact duplicates of information already included in the main article (this one), with nothing additional beyond that. Per the WP:WikiProject Television guideline, There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content. But I digress... IMO, there's not enough at this time to warrant a list article for the episodes either. The current article is very small in terms of readable prose (13k) and there are only 26 episodes at this time, not enough to justify a list article. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok I can see that, thanks for sharing that link to the subsection on MOS. Since 50-60 eps are needed to divide the section and article, I can definitely see (since the show will without doubt be on air for a while due to its popularity) when it gets to about the fifth season that I (or someone else) can begin developing the article and publish it when it gets to the sixth-seventh season, because by then it would meet the formers criteria. Although if it gets cancelled I’ll have to reluctantly discard those ideas. Wolfquack (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Season pages be deleted, I’ll go over there to see if I could “vote” on the article, or at best give some input. Wolfquack (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this discussion rather than starting a new one. As noted elsewhere, I'd like to get this article to WP:GA status. Working towards that, the article has been expanded quite a bit in the last couple of months, now at around 3500 words of readable prose (w/o the episode summaries). Without the cast list and episode lists, it's at about 22k. Add in 1k for each episode summary (and assuming a summary for the remaining season 3 episodes) plus the cast list and we're probably around 45k - close to the recommended split threshold noted by MOS:TVSPLIT. One of the recommendations from the most recent assessment was to go ahead and split a list article for the episodes. Because we're right at the threshold meeting the MOS guideline, and seeing that it was recommended in assessment, I'm going to WP:PROSPLIT an episode list article, as discussion is not needed. However, since this discussion also brought up the season episodes, I want to note that we are still a long way from needing to split season articles. There simply is not enough content at this point in time to warrant individual season articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Cast in article

The size of the cast is somewhat problematic for displaying a cast list. There are a lot of moving parts as some characters shift from season to season. That was the reason for making a single list rather than splitting "main" and "recurring" lists. This was discussed above (and if I can find it, I'll revise this with a quick link). It was also discussed that due to the complexity, it would be a good idea to use the table display method. Generally, that should wait until there are 3 or more seasons, but someone put one in, it was worked on, and then someone removed it. Where it stood prior to removal is this edit: [1]. Note that using the table method is an "either/or" proposition - either we use a list or we use the table. It should not use both. But if a table is used, sections of prose can be used for describing the cast/characters. House (TV series) and Grey's Anatomy are good examples of how to approach this, and that's how I'd recommend approaching it. Ultimately, the cast display is one of the things that is going to either hold the article back or move it forward in terms of evaluating it as B-class or higher (see assessment discussion below). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Assessment discussion

The article is presently independently assessed as C-class by members of WP:WikiProject Television, and after hundreds of additional edits, there isn't any current improvement to the article since that assessment that would move it closer to B-class. I'll explain why shortly, but I want to point out that we should all be working towards getting the article to GA status so it can be a featured article. But that's going to take effort on the part of everyone to work collaboratively using established guidelines. Constant instability due to edit warring is an immediate fail for GA criteria. Since this article tends to attract new, inexperienced editors who are passionate about the subject but who are often unfamiliar with how article assessment works, it would be good for you to review the guidelines here: WP:ASSESS. You can view the Television Project's assessment criteria and discussions here: WP:TV/A. Let me point out that the majority of current editing I see on this article does nothing to improve it for assessment. Much of the focus in the past has generally been on "list" detail (cast and episodes) which really don't matter much for assessment, other than being complete. It is the other sections of the article, such as production and response sections, that need much more work. That is also why I have mentioned in separate discussion why it is important to not split this article. Inexperienced editors see shows with separate season articles and list articles and think that's what should happen here, too. But there are specific guidelines and criteria for that process (see MOS:TVSPLIT) and this article doesn't meet any of them (and probably won't for a while). What I'm trying to point out is that if you split this article too soon, you'll end up with a bunch of C-class and lower articles that will never stand a chance of making GA assessment and will never be a featured article. Focus on building out the content that matters first. If you're really trying to be part of the project in terms of making this a GA/featured article, stop looking at other low grade articles as your example and instead look at examples of ones that have made it to that point. Here are some examples of what you should try to emulate: Featured Article (FA): House (TV series), A-class/Good Article (GA): Grey's Anatomy, B-class: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That doesn't mean "do it exactly this way" - but those are examples of what we're working towards in terms of assessment. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Update/addendum to the above: I previously said the article hadn't made much progress towards B-class since its last assessment. I want to walk that back a bit, as a further review would suggest that it's farther along than I previously thought. The article structure is fairly complete with the key sections used by MOS:TV, which is B#3. Likewise, there is good coverage of available information: B#2. For the most part, I think it could meet most of the criteria for B-class with a little copy-editing and improvement of sources (see The Chosen (TV series)#Source review above). ButlerBlog (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox network/distributor

Per the docs for Template:Infobox television, the network and distributor parameters are the "original". So even though there has been some change in this regard (VidAngel => Angel Studios), that needs to be reflected. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan site or IMDb, so our information reflects "what was" not "what is". So these need to be reflected probably as a plainlist with dates indicating the years. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Pay It Forward

I feel a little sheepish because this is a very small and technical issue—not substantive—but I would like to get consensus on how to structure "pay it forward" within the article. The Chosen's pay-it-forward page on angel.com seems to treat it like a proper noun by capitalizing it with no hyphens and no double quotes. However, I don't put too much stock in that; that is, I don't think there was a meaningful consensus made by the writers or editors or whoever. In any case, I absolutely don't think double quotes should be used. I think it should be either capitalized as a proper noun or hyphenated (I lean heavily toward hyphenated):

the Pay It Forward model or the pay-it-forward model

Thanks for the thoughts. Scapulus^takk 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since we have our own style guide, we adhere to that regardless of what another site may (or may not) do. I don't think the case can be made to capitalize it, and where it is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, it is not capitalized nor hyphenated (although it should be noted, not everything within the WP sphere is always following our own manual of style, so just because something exists here doesn't mean it's done correctly). I could support quotes or no quotes, but definitely not capitalized and probably not hyphenated. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I do understand that we have the WP:MOS, but as far as I know, there is no entry for "pay it forward." That's why I brought up the angel.com usage. If it had some sort of official usage within the company, then I would give credence to that (again, in the absence of any official entry in WP:MOS). Thank you for bringing up Pay it forward. That is useful. However, it refers generally to the concept of paying it forward and not to the treatment of the phrase as an adjective. There are, currently, five instances of "pay it forward" within the article's running text. The first is using the phrase generally, in which case I don't think the scare quotes are needed because the phrase is arguably well known and not being used out of context. The other four are being used as adjectives with the word "model" after it. Based on the third section of MOS:HYPHEN, I think hyphenation can be well supported. But I agree that hyphens may not be needed. I'll reiterate that scare quotes should be out of the question given that their grammatical function doesn't apply to this circumstance. Scapulus^takk 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No quotes is probably best. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if I don't get anymore input soon from anyone else, I'll just go ahead with "pay it forward" (no quotes). Scapulus^takk 17:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take care of it for now. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Promotional tone

Lacks objectivity, reads as if it is advertisement. Cwaterous (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has passed B-class assessment based on independent review from the Television Project and is written in neutral point of view based on reliable sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Cast list

Time for the cast list to grow and evolve with the show. I have edited it; changes are up for discussion rather than revision back to the status quo. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting to status quo. Please leave it at status quo ante. I'll listen to your reasons for changing it, but there are specific reasons for the cast list is the way it currently stands - and I noted them to you in the edit summary - previous independent article class assessments noted the excessive length of the cast and determined to maintain it as main cast only. The remainder are noted in the plot summaries. Please also review MOS:TVCAST, especially noting that not every cast member is notable, nor needs to be included. This article is currently pending a review for GA status, so please don't edit war over this as article instability is an immediate fail of the GA assessment process. If you don't understand things, ask. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Butlerblog, won't it fail GA if anything in the article is copied verbatim from anything on the internet let alone an unreliable source? Not to mention, I don't see it passing GA right now at all because much of the wording throughout the article is not well written. Characters such as Pontius Pilate need to be in the cast list. So does Mary Salome, especially since she is an actual person written about in the Bible. I can understand that the list should probably be pared down some, but then again, if you're leaving out important characteristics and points regarding a character in the show, then it's not a good list. What say you? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RE Characters such as Pontius Pilate need to be in the cast list. So does Mary Salome, especially since she is an actual person written about in the Bible: This article is not about the Bible story - it's about the television show, and therefore it falls under the television manual of style. A character's prominence in the Biblical narrative is not the determining factor - the show's credits are. Pontius Pilate is not a main character at this point. His inclusion is noted in the plot summary of the episode in which he appears. While he may very well be in the main cast in later seasons, he is not main cast at present, and for reasons already noted, this article does not list recurring or guest characters that are main cast in at least one of the seasons listed.

As for copyvio issues, if there's something you believe to be copied verbatim, identify it. At present, I'm not aware of anything that is an issue. Also, keep in mind that other sites copy Wikipedia, so something you find somewhere else could easily have been copied from here and not the other way around (which is not uncommon). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the work for you. The verbatim content pulled from other online sources listing these characters is out there, you just have to look for it. You want the article to pass GA, so you'll have to do the work to get it there, right? You have certainly been editing this article heavily and I'm going to assume you know the show pretty well. Salome has been featured in scenes in all three seasons, right alongside her husband Zebedee, and she IS a documented follower of Jesus so I don't know why you'd want to keep her out of the cast list. I will also assume you know the main and most well known storylines around the life of Jesus. Since Pontius Pilate is the only high ranking Roman in the Bible, and Jenkins does pull his most well known characters in the Jesus story from the Bible, it only makes sense that Pilate will be in upcoming episodes. In fact, it's certain he will be. But I suppose we can wait until he appears again, although I don't know why because his presence is going to be pivotal in the storylines to come. As will Lazarus and Mary and Martha his sisters who become followers. Good luck on the GA. Is it protocol in Wikipedia to keep people from editing an article when GA is forthcoming? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the work for you. Just, wow. You're making a claim of copyvio. If there's validity to your claim, address it. Otherwise, there is nothing further to discuss on that point. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do suspect a copyright violation, but I'm not going to devote time to investigating. I just thought you might like to know it's a possibility. As to the other cast members, the list needs updating and improving, that's all I was trying to do. Hopefully there will be no issue with getting GA status. I would like to know if it's expected that no one edit the article while GA reviewing or voting or however it works is happening. If you could answer that point I'd appreciate it. Thank you! A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no specific hard-and-fast rule, but's best to avoid editing while GA is pending as article stability is a contributing factor. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Quickfail

Hello @Butlerblog: I see you have nominated this article for GA status. Immediately I have to quick fail the article due to the edit war which happened earlier in the month. There was a series of edits and a ongoing talk page discussion. Additionally there was indeed copy right violations. Finally the use of Fox News is problematic in this instance as they have been established to be unreliable on politics and science which both have a relative overlap with religion. Finally the article itself is good except for the reviews section which seems rather small and most of the reviews listed come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. So I would recommend hunting down more reviews, doing a source cleanup, and archive some of the sources. Thanks OLI 01:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I would ask you to take a look at the Fox News sources again. They are not religion articles, they are from the entertainment category which would pass WP:RSP (same as this article is not a religion article here at Wikipedia - it's a television article). Can you provide more specifics for any copyright violations. I have used Earwig's copyvio detector and found no specific issues. Can you point out what you believe to be problematic? ButlerBlog (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the genre of the show (its about Jesus) it could be classified as an article about religion OLI 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your QF and will be renominating at some point. I'm going to address below each of the items you pointed out so that they can be noted in a future review as to what has been addressed. Your list of items did not cover the specific GA criteria directly. I don't know if that's because you chose to QF the review or if it's due to lack of experience in the process. I'm going to assume the former, but you didn't specifically state that and then went on with additional items I would expect to see listed in terms of the GA criteria they represent.

• QF4 (not stable due to edit warring): As noted above, I disagree with your assessment of what occurred. The article history is pretty stable, and the editor in question accepted the reversion in the talk page discussion. That's not the kind of ongoing edit war and page instability that QF4 is intended to address.
• QF2 & GA2D (copyright): I'm assuming since you claimed there were copyright violations, that this also would be QF2 in your mind. I really do not see where you are getting this - and more importantly, why you're not pointing it out directly (even when asked, see above comment from 25 Aug). If there are copyvio issues, then you are obliged to point them out so they can be addressed. I personally have written well over half of the article's prose, so I'm pretty familiar with what was written and how it was cited. I have also run the article through WP:EARWIG on more than one occasion. With the exception of a blog that is very obviously a case of WP:BACKWARDSCOPY, there isn't even a question of copyvio. Any verbatim content from the sources is formatted as a quote. Anything else is attributed to the cited source. If there's a copyvio issue, you really need to point out exactly what it is. It can't be addressed otherwise. I'll further note that what User:Alaska4Me2 said on the talk page about I'm not going to do the work for you shows a total disregard for our process for reporting issues outlined at WP:DCV. I would appreciate you not doing the same. If you suspect it, address it directly. Otherwise, don't bother bring it up.
• GA2: Somewhere in the GA2 criteria, you're applying WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, which I would suggest you are misinterpreting/misapplying. The articles used were from the Fox News Entertainment category, which is perennial source under WP:FOXNEWS. Additionally, consider the context of what they are citing and how they are being applied. In GA2B, are these controversial statements and could they be challenged? The answer is a clear "no" because what they cited was non-controversial information taken from an interview with the series creator about his development of the series. They're not citing a declarative statement about religion or a controversial item (and as noted, the article is about a television series, not about religion anyway). Regardless, I reviewed the source material and removed or replaced most of the uses of Fox with the minor exception of two places in the article using the same single source, and if you'll look at where/how the source is used, you'll see that it is used appropriately.
• GA1B: I have taken what you noted about the reviews section and worked on that section. But like the other items, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of that section. Per MOS:TV, the article has all the appropriate sections (even though that is not technically required), and "reviews" is a subsection of "reception". The very first sentence of that section states the show's popularity began largely as an underground phenomenon, going unnoticed and unreviewed by major publications. Taking that in context, there is very little in terms of "standard" reviews (and awards/accolades) because the show has intentionally operated outside of the Hollywood mainstream. To attempt to seek out more content for this section would be "forced" and inauthentic in the article. Since sources such as Variety typically pan this type of production, you simply are not going to find many reviews that come from WP:RS qualified sources. If there aren't mainstream reviews (which there aren't), then there just aren't any. Now, with that in mind, I have sought out some additional content for this section, and I'll note that I disagree with the assessment that they come from sources which wouldnt typically be used in a tv article. If you disagree with that, then I would ask what sources you think are not "typical".

ButlerBlog (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GAN/I#N4/WP:GAN/I#N5, I am renominating to get a different reviewer. As I noted in the above comments, I believe the previous QF was invalid or inappropriately applied criteria. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah thats fair I've kinda been going through something elsewhere on the wiki :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 19:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the AfC issues, too. I think that all of it is due primarily to inexperience. Don't take it personally, as we all have to start somewhere. As far as this one goes, I've already moved on with renomination, but you do owe some follow-up to Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1)/GA1, or at least withdraw from the process so someone else can complete a review (WP:GAN/I#N4a). ButlerBlog (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Character boxes

How is main or recurring status determined for the series and season?

There are folks that appear in:

• Opening title credits
• End credits: Also starring

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the discussions around the cast list are in the archive. Through the process of two independent assessments (from "start" to "C" class, then "C" to "B" class), it was recommended that, due to the length and complexity of the entire cast, that the list be limited to main cast only. I think that through discussion (in the archive), that was essentially determined by opening credits. I did the first two seasons, and if I recall correctly, someone else added the 3rd, but I confirmed it and all of that was based on opening credits (i.e. per MOS:TVCAST, the billing of main cast is determined by the production, not by our own personal taste). Also per MOS:TVCAST, new main cast is added in order (so old main cast that may not carry over to the next season still remains). At some point, it will likely be necessary to have a list article for cast/characters. First, that would alleviate some of the contention that certain characters be included even though they may not be listed in the opening credits. And second, that prevents clutter of dozens of minor characters in the main article. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify - the list is "main cast" (opening credits) over three seasons. So while someone may have been main cast in only one or two seasons, it lists their status from any other season they also appeared in (rather than only taking their main cast season alone). The models used for example were The Killing (American TV series)#Cast, House (TV series), and Grey's Anatomy (as far as how the table was applied. House has a separate list article for cast and characters that could serve as a model for expanding a list article to incorporate a listing of main plus recurring and guest cast. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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? [2] 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)