Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chains of Love (TV series)/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) 23:49, 23 December 2017.

Chains of Love (TV series)

 * Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that cuffing season is in full effect, you could celebrate it by learning about this rather unique dating game show. In a concept compared to "televised prostitution” by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chains of Love revolves around a man or woman being chained to four members of the opposite sex for four days. Critical reception towards the show was primarily negative, with a majority of the criticism directed at the premise.

This show represents a rather interesting slice of early reality television programming, though I could still see a network like VH1 rebooting this for the controversy. Also, for a bit of television trivia, the development of this show actually indirectly led to the production of a far more famous series known as Fear Factor. This nomination also continues my weird fascination with UPN programming as I have put several other shows from the network through the FAC process in the past. I am looking forward to everyone’s comments. I hope you all have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moise
Lead:
 * The second sentence talks about a “man or woman”, then the third sentence is about a group, then the fourth sentence starts with “This person”. It feels a little far, especially when the group was talked about in between. It’d flow better if you could find a way around that. Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note; I have revised the section. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In the lead ("The program was originally ordered by NBC, before UPN produced it") and in the Production section ("UPN produced Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network") is there any reason not to say "UPN began producing" instead of "UPN produced"? It the context it seems like that would flow a lot better. Moisejp (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see that NBC never actually produced it, and they gave up on it before any episodes were made. Still, I think you could make that transition clearer by changing the wording from simply "UPN produced". Moisejp (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I am sorry for missing this earlier. I have corrected the two instances pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The show was compared to other dating game shows, such as Temptation Island and The Dating Game." I know nothing about those other dating game shows. As a reader, if given this information in the lead, I'm interested to know at least a little about what aspects of these other dating shows was deemed similar, otherwise the sentence is meaningless to me. Moisejp (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have revised this to hopefully read better. Aoba47 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aoba. This looks likely better. (On my second read-through after, I'll have one more check for how everything flows as a whole.) But maybe I wasn't clear in my other comments above, but I was also hoping you could tweak the two instances of UPD produced. I'll continue my review soon. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response! I apologize for missing your earlier comment; I am not sure how that happened. Hope you have a great day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay:
 * "John Carman of the San Francisco Chronicle interpreted the Lockmaster as the show's version of the Grim Reaper." I'm not sure what this means. All Carman says is "who is the show's Grim Reaper" and it is not clear what aspects Carman is talking about, or what aspects of the Lockmaster would be realistically comparable to Death personified. Maybe Carman was joking? It's really hard to know. I might suggest removing this sentence. Moisejp (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I was actually look at this sentence in particular the other day, and I do admit that it is rather silly. It also generally disrupts the flow of the information being presented either way. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "When one contestant remains, the Picker can choose to split the remaining cash with them if he or she feels that a "love connection" has been formed.[1] The Picker can also choose to keep the money for themselves." Here you use two different strategies for designating someone who could be a man or woman ("he or she" / "themselves"). I've always vaguely felt people should decide to use one strategy or the other but not both as they are kind of opposing ways of treating the problem. But it's not a strong opinion, and if you disagree with me, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed the "he or she" to "they". Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:
 * "Garfinkle had previously worked on Blind Date.[1] It was also produced by people who were involved in the development of the Big Brother franchise." Could you give more background about these shows for people like me who have never heard of them? Maybe what kind of shows they were and the years they ran, at least. But I guess if you put the years for them, you'd possibly have to start putting the years for all the other shows in the article. Maybe you can find another way to give them little introductions. I have heard of Melrose Place, but if you think it is appropriate, you could give it a mini-introduction too. Some people out there might not know it.
 * Added two descriptive phrases in front of Blind Date and Big Brother. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "it's become more like a soap opera with the competition": I really don't know what this means. Ah, OK, after reading it several times I now think it means that because there is competition among the contestants, the show is like a soap opera. Maybe it would be an idea to paraphrase this quotation. At first I was reading it like "the competing networks were treating it like a soap opera", which doesn't make sense. Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Paraphrase the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "UPN began producing Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network." Do you have any information about the circumstances between NBC giving up on it and UPN picking it up? Was it shopped around more, or were there other circumstances that made UPN aware of the opportunity to produce it?
 * Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any further information on this matter. It just appears to me that UPN somehow became aware of the property and that it was n longer being produced by NBC, and then took it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The New York Times' Bill Carter identified Chains of Love as part of a "second wave of reality shows" " Can you develop this more? When was the first wave? Were the two waves different from each other? What ended the first wave and brought on the second wave? Even if this info isn't used in the current source, maybe you can dig around and find supporting info elsewhere. As it is, the statement doesn't tell us much that we can sink our teeth into. Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Expanded the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast history:
 * "Kay explained that UPN had allocated a lower budget for the Chains of Love advertising campaign than it had for Gary & Mike." "Explained" in relation to what? Would a different verb be better here?
 * Replaced verb. Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Consider breaking the last paragraph in this section into two, from "UPN cancelled"? It's not clear how the first part and second part of the para are related. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; I have separated the paragraph into two. Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception:
 * "On its debut, Chains of Love received primarily negative feedback from television critics.[9][10] Even though he heavily panned the series as "crass, exploitative and demeaning", the San Francisco Chronicle's John Carman wrote that he was interested in watching how each of the men would approach the situation differently." I feel there is a somewhat awkward transition here. The first sentence is all about negative reviews but then the first example (sentence two) is worded in a way that the non-negative is emphasized.
 * I have made a new paragraph with the more positive remarks toward the show and changed the part in the lead associated with the criticism. However, I have kept the first line of the first paragraph as it is cited by the two sources, which both claim that the show received a primarily negative response from critics. I can change that if you feel it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Entertainment Weekly's Dan Snierson described it as "the most bizarre and captivating reality series in TV history" due primarily to its premise." This is not negative at all; its describes the show as "captivating". Maybe you need a different topic sentence, which won't set the reader's expectations that the paragraph will mostly be about negative stuff.
 * See above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph in this section, the statements by reviewers are so short; I urge you to try to develop these more, so that the reader can get deeper understanding of what it all means. The paragraph compares it to a bunch of other shows. What aspects are similar? What are the premises for these other shows being compared to? As I mentioned above, maybe readers (like me) are not at all familiar with these other shows. As I was reading through the paragraph, all the comparisons meant very little to me. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have cut some parts of the paragraph, and added further context to other portions. I can edit it further if you feel that more context is needed or I can remove the paragraph entirely if you do not believe it adds much to the overall article. Thank you again for your review as always. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to double-check with you on this matter and the rest of the review? Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Second read-through: The article is improving. Rather than responding to your changes above individually, I'm reading this with (somewhat) fresh eyes, and am going to comment on the content in a "clean slate" kind of way.
 * In the lead there is "Media outlets questioned whether the show's airing on network television had restricted its content" which is quite clear, but I felt in the Broadcast history section "Media outlets questioned whether the show's broadcast on network television had a direct impact on its more mature content" is less clear. The meaning is maybe illustrated in the hot-tub example that follows, but I still didn't get the whole picture immediately when I read it. Could you change "had a direct impact on" to something like "limited"? Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Minor suggestion, but the lead might flow slightly better if you put the sentence about never being re-released on DVD, etc. at the very end of the lead. This wouldn't follow the order of the main text, but for me that's no problem. But it's up to you.
 * Moved. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In the lead, is there a mini-intro you can give to Manhunt? Something along the lines of "simulated fugitive-chase show Manhunt"?
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding an mini-intro to The Dating Game and Blind Date but now it sounds very repetitive with "dating game shows like The Dating Game". Maybe something like "other shows where contestants seek love partners, such as The Dating Game and Blind Date. Moisejp (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue my comments very soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments so far! Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:
 * "Newsweek's Marc Peyser believed that NBC dropped out of the project on "moral grounds"." Are there any more details you can give about this? Moisejp (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, he did not provide exact examples of this. The quote was taken from this sentence ( No, what's amazing about "Chains" is that it's the first reality program dropped by a network on moral grounds before it ever aired.). He is primarily referring to the show's content with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * " UPN began producing Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network." Have you considered trying to paraphrase "aggressive" here, if a suitable synonym exists? Moisejp (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Paraphrased. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Professors David Croteau and William Hoynes listed Chains of Love as an example of a program that expanded on the basic principles set out by Survivor in their 2003 study Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences." Did they give any details on which basic principles were expanded on? Moisejp (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced with a source that goes more into depth on this. Let me know if it needs further clarification. Both shows feature a specific way of editing a contestant to better appeal to a large audience. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The network's entertainment chief Tom Nunan said the series was intended to improve the network's ratings, saying" Try to avoid repetition of "said... saying". Moisejp (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Valentine found the series was primarily an example of physical comedy." Were any more details about this given (e.g., in what ways it was physical comedy)? Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the paragraph with the quote given by Valentine: (Mr. Valentine described Chains of Love, a show once owned by NBC before that network passed on it, as mainly very, very funny in a physical comedy sense, although he added, There's something very powerful about being chained up to somebody else.) It seems that he is referring to the physical comedy coming from how the contestants are chained together, but I am not sure how to put it in the article without it coming across as original research as he does not provide a specific reason or connection between the two ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast history:
 * Is there any mini-introductory info you can give about L-90? It is a short, kind of unusual name and is mentioned suddenly, and the reader is left to figure it out. Of course there is "created the campaign". Moisejp (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a mini-intro for that part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * “Kay said that UPN had allocated a lower budget for the Chains of Love advertising campaign than it had for Gary & Mike.” This doesn’t seem like the most worthwhile point to add, unless more context is given about why it’s relevant. Are there other details about the marketing campaign that you could add instead, or information about the existing details that would increase the reader’s understanding in a meaningful way? Moisejp (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence in question (though I do think it is somewhat helpful with understanding the budget for the promotional campaign in comparison to another series, but I understand your concern about it). I think that I have covered all of the information from the source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue my review ASAP—thanks! Moisejp (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, thank you for doing the review in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You have Broadcast history under Reception. Should it be?
 * I modeled this article after several featured articles on television shows and episodes, and they frequently combine the two together under the "Reception" heading. I have separated the two for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In the Reception section, the number of quotations is perhaps a little bit more than would be ideal. If you could find good paraphrases for any of them, it would be beneficial. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have paraphrased a few of the quotes; let me know if more needs to be paraphrased. Thank you again for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am now ready to support. Good work on the article. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 7: Harvard error
 * I think that I have corrected this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ref 14: link gives 404 message
 * Unfortunately, I could not find an archived version of the site so I have removed the source completely. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Refs 23 and 28 appear identical
 * Thank you for pointing this out; I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no citations to Castleman and Podrazik, which should be removed from the book sources
 * Removed. I had thought about using the source, but could not find a good place for it. Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Page ranges (see Bell, also Madger) require ndashes not hyphens
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Subject to the above, sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review! I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2
This article looks pretty good written. I give this my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64
I'll be posting some comments in a little while. JOE BRO  64  20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel like some of the quotes, such as "a burly dude in a dark suit and shades" and "creative conflicts with the show's producer" could be paraphrased.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Put EW in parenthesis after Entertainment Weekly. Some readers may not know what EW means.
 * The EW part is not necessary as the critic was already introduced in the same section so I removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Later dating shows, Elimidate Deluxe, Lap of Luxury, and Tethered, were described as borrowing elements from Chains of Love - such as?
 * Added more to this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I found. Overall, this is a well-written article, and there wasn't much that I found. Once these comments are addressed, I'll support promotion. JOE BRO  64  11:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my concerns. I support this promotion. Good luck! JOE  BRO  64  17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Bcschneider53
I cannot find anything in this article that would lead me to oppose it. As the most active member of the Game Shows WikiProject, I will not give an official support as doing so would constitute a conflict of interest, but I do want to congratulate the nominator on a job well done. Best wishes for the rest of this nomination! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Images
ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:ChainsofLoveTitleCardUPN.jpg: NFCC#2 rationale needs some polishing, seems like.
 * File:ChainsofLoveInChainsofLove.jpg: I don't think the NFCC#8 rationale here is sufficient - I certainly don't miss any essential aspect of the topic if it was gone.
 * Thank you for your comment. I have revised the NFCC#8 rationale for the second image and the NFCC#2 rationale for the infobox image. Please let me know if you believe that the rationale for the second image is strong enough, as I will remove it if you believe that it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not good on that NFCC#2; the point is not whether the author can use it but whether other people can't use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I am not entirely certain what you mean though, could you provide some further clarification? I apologize for my confusion and misunderstanding. I have attempted to revise it further, but I am still not understanding what you mean. I have put in something to address the respect forcommercial opportunities, which is what is being asked for by the NFCC#2 point. Thank you again for your help so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The NFCC#2 rationale needs to explain why the image won't compete with a commercial use by the copyright holders. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment from Bcschneider53
 * IIRC, you did image reviews for a couple of my FACs in the past. The NFCC#2 rationale that I have always used is: "This image is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material; it is merely used for informational purposes." Since The American Bible Challenge and The Chase (U.S. game show) passed the image review without much problem, would such wording in the rationale solve the issue at hand in this review? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have updated the rationale accordingly. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

 * What was the name of the Dutch show it was adapted from? I'd specify this in the Production section, along with a translation if necessary.
 * Unfortunately, I could not locate the title of the Dutch show. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 'and can remove three contestants' - Do three contestants get removed together? Or one at a time after intervals? I'd clarify this in the lead and the body.
 * Clarified it in the lead; I think it is already clear in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to specify 'between the ages of 12 and 34' in the lead? This sentence also doesn't make it clear whether the online campaign was to promote the series or gather contestants, or both. I'd say 'UPN promoted the series with a a month-long online campaign'
 * I think that it is important to include part of the idea as the show was marketed towards younger women; I have removed the ages, but revised it to make it clear who the campaign was directed towards. I have specified that the campaign was done to promote the show. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I found. Looks really good. Freikorp (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Status Update

 * I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received several reviews, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful holiday season. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Krish!

 * Support: This article is well-written and more than worthy of that bronze star. Nice work . Krish  &#124;  Talk  04:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2
Don't see any major faults with the article now. Good work,. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.