Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The American Bible Challenge/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2017 [1].
- Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about The American Bible Challenge, a Biblical-themed game show that aired on Game Show Network from 2012 to 2014. The series was hosted by Jeff Foxworthy, perhaps best known for his career as a comedian and host of the highly successful Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? on Fox. The series received a Daytime Emmy Award nomination and broke several ratings records for GSN over its three seasons. I brought it up to GA status a couple of years ago and am now nominating it here. Any comments and/or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
Resolved
|
---|
@Bcschneider53: Great work with the article as whole. If promoted, this would be the first featured article on a game show so that is very exciting. A lot of more comments are more minor notes/nitpicky questions about sentence structure and confusion on certain parts, but otherwise, I will mostly likely support this after you address my review above (I will give one or two more look-throughs after you address my comments just to make sure I caught everything). If possible, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by MWright96
- General
- I believe it would be benefical if app were to be changed to application to make the article slightly less casual
- Partly done; changed to mobile app with the direct wikilink. Is this okay? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Numbers between one and nine should be spelt out per MOS:NUMBERS
- Thank you for pointing this out, let me know if I missed any (if I did, free free to fix it yourself). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- References
- Remove the names of publisher where it is very similar to the aforementioned works
- The Deseret News wikilink in Ref 17 is a dab link
- Same issue with New York Daily News in Ref 27
- NBC News should be italized and wikilinked
- Refs 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 37 should all be archived to prevent link rot
- @MWright96: Thank you! I addressed the first two but have to step out for a bit. Hoping to get to the references later tonight, though archiving the links may take a bit, so I may have to push it back to tomorrow. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- @MWright96: Okay, finished the reference issues, except for two URLs that the Internet Archive would not let me save (both belong to The Futon Critic). Thanks again, and let me know if there is anything else I should do. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Article is comprehensive, neutral and well written. You want to use webcitation.org to archive The Futon Critic references but this does not stop me from lending my support to giving this article featured status. I have not spot checked the sources MWright96 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:The American Bible Challenge Season 2.png: Non-free logo, which is appropriate licensing given the stylization. Using it in the infobox to identify the work seems fine for me. I am inclined to think that all requisites of NFCC are satisfied.
- File:Us mil Foxworthy 0411 cropped.JPG: Free image on Commons. Using it to illustrate the host in the section where this is explicitly discussed seems fine for me. Source links need to be fixed, but the license statement seems plausible to me - such circumstances would most likely be considered on-duty.
- File:Kirk and Tammy Franklin.jpg: Free image on Commons. It does not appear to be discussed in the section the image is in. Flickr file with plausible EXIF which has apparently been relicensed as "all rights reserved" later but that does not negate an earlier free license.
All images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I fixed the summary section for the Foxworthy image but it appears the link is dead and the Internet Archive does not appear to have an archived link available. Can the image still be used? If not, the only other alternative would be this image, which, in my opinion, is inferior to the current one given the amount of blackspace and the writing in the bottom right corner. I suppose those could maybe be cropped out though… --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- All three occurrences of the adverb "officially" are redundant and should be deleted. There are other occasions of redundant words ("conversely"), grammatical errors ("the Levasheff's son") and unwieldy sentences (the second sentence of the second paragraph is very difficult to comprehend).
- Mostly done; tried to clean up various sections of prose but not exactly sure which sentence is the "unwieldly" one. Which paragraph/section are you referring to here? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the Washington Post's review mentioned third, after a tabloid and a religious publication? It seems to be the wrong way around: the most reliable critics should come first, whether they are positive or negative.
- Switched. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- In the review section there is no mention of the (generally positive) 2012 New York Times review by Neil Genzlinger, despite it being invoked at footnote 4.
- Not sure how I missed this, thanks. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- T. L. Stanley's article in the LA Times is not used. You wouldn't need to use all such newspaper pieces, but the article as it stands relies very heavily on GSN's coverage of its own programming. Syek88 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Syek88: Thank you for your comments! I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Syek88: Done with most of it, let me know if you find anything else that needs work. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I have now been through the article at least a half-a-dozen times, including since my comments above. After those reviews, and considering the comments of others, I am now happy to support. Sorry for the delay in doing so. Syek88 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Syek88: I don't mean to pester but I don't want this nomination to stall out either. Is there anything else that needs to be amended before you are willing to offer your support? Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think the second image can still be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
A few comments:
- "GSN was then forced to bring in new staff members during a six-week period": why were they forced to bring in new staff members?
- Unclear. The book just says they brought them in as part of the changes. I've tweaked this section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- "GSN announced its development to the public at an upfront presentation": what does "upfront" mean here? To me it usually means "honest" or "straightforward".
- An "upfront" presentation is when a TV network previews series that are either in development, or have been given the go-ahead to air, for the coming year. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- 'he was "sold" on providing hosting duties': one performs duties, or provides services. Also I don't think you need the quotes around "sold" though it might be better phrased as "he decided to take on the role of host" or "he agreed to act as host".
- Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Throughout the first season, the series became GSN's most successful original program ever": needs to be rephrased; the series became the most successful original program at some point in time; it didn't continue to become it throughout the season. Perhaps "By the end of the first season, the series had become"?
- Rephrased. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't done a source review, but I noticed the use of thefutoncritic.com; what makes that a reliable source?
- It's a television news source that I've used in several GAs that I've never had an issue with when it comes to intentionally giving out misguiding information. A previous reviewer actually requested that I use one of the Futon Critic sources, so I obliged. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- "While GSN never canceled the series, the show is considered to have ended after the third season given the lack of production since 2014": as far as I can see the source for this is just a listing that doesn't show any series after 2014. I think you should cut the "considered to have ended" wording; for all we know GSN is planning to bring it back next year.
- Rephrased. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Thank you, Mike. Will get to this soon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: I believe I've responded to each request. Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Everything above is addressed; as far as I can tell thefutoncritic.com is reliable though I'm not familiar with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Source review/spot check by Cas Liber
- Earwig's copyvio tool clear.
- References formatted consistently.
- FN 10 - material faithful to source.
- @Casliber: Thank you! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- FN 29, 31, 36,37 and 38 - used once each. material faithful to sources.
- Quite a few primary sources used actually, but material that it is supporting is not controversial so not a big deal.
- I'd say that primary sources are only an issue if they are used for synthetic claims or those under purview of Template:AEIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.