Talk:The Chosen (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

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)