GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
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)
Comments as follows:
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@ 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 Note that after both removing some items and shifting others, the source numbers from your original comments are no longer valid.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.
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 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?
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.)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
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)
Comments as follows:
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@ 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.
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 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?
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.)
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)