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.

The American Bible Challenge

 * 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

 * The image of Jeff Foxworthy seems rather large in comparison to the text and the other images. I would recommend re-sizing this so it doesn't seem so out-of-place, or interrupt the flow of the article as much.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not religious so I may be incorrect about this, but would "biblical characters" be a more appropriate phrase rather than "Bible characters"? "Bible characters" just sounds odd to me, but it could be a correct phrasing of it.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a little confused by the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Main game" subsection. I understand the bit about the physical activity/stunt, but I am confused by the sentence about the questions, specifically the line: "with the same set of choices given for each character." Could you please clarify what you mean by "the same set of choices"? I believe this needs to made clearer as it seems to a central structure of the game show. The following sentence after this part also adds to my confusion as it names an example of a physical stunt, but the "question" and "answer" still seem rather vague.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would rephrase the first sentence of the "The Final Revelation" subsection as it is somewhat awkward. The phrase "Before this game" seems a little strange, as it could read that it is transitioning to a completely different game rather than being the final round of the game as a whole.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In the last sentence of the first paragraph of that same section, I would clarify "along with a physical copy of the Bible".
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The phrase "After the 10 minutes are up" seems rather informal, so I would suggest revising with stronger word choice.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The "many" in the phrase "many new staff members" is not necessary. Either state the number if known or just say "new staffs members" as the "many" does not add much to the sentence as it is vague and could represent a majority or a few depending on reader interpretation.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would separate the first sentence in the "Season 1" subsection into two: with the first saying the premiere date and the second about the ratings/records.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please add ALT descriptions for the images (including the image in the infobox)
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any information on the show's cancellation, such as the reason behind it? This would be helpful, but I understand that this information may not be out there. You should at least say that the show was either cancelled or ended somewhere in the body of the article (most likely in the "Season 3" subsection).
 * GSN is a (very) small cable network (though perhaps not as small as it was before Bible Challenge's success...), and because of this, their shows are usually just quietly dropped. The fact that new episodes haven't aired in nearly 2.5 years certainly implies production has stopped, but I'll do my best. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Understandable. You could use the following source here to support a small line that the show was canceled/ended in the 2013-2014 television season. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There are just three reviews in the "Reception" section: with two that seem positive and one that seems negative, so I do not believe the first sentence of the "Reception" section is quite needed. If there aren't any more reviews to discuss, I would stay away from describing any kind of consensus or summary of critical reviews with only three that were known to have been published. This could be more of a personal preference, but it just seemed odd to me to make a consensus after three reviews so I wanted to draw your attention to this.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove "also" in front of "honored" in the same section. The previous sentences did not mention anything about the show winning a reward so it cannot also be honored if it is the first sentence that discuss the show's accolades.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the third paragraph of the "Reception" section be moved up to the "Season 1" subsection as it deals directly with the first episode? You already mention briefly something about the records/ratings there so it would be better to group the information together.
 * Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * Thank you for your comments! I will take a look later this evening when I get home from school. I believe I added alt text everywhere except the infobox but I could be mistaken. As my user page notes, life is very busy for me right now but I'll try to make time to look at your FAC as well. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome! And thank you for adding the alt text. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. The article was an interesting read, as I never heard about this show before this. And no worries, life is extremely busy for me too so I completely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe everything here has been addressed; let me know after you give it a second run-through. Thanks again! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 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
 * 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)
 * 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
All images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Thank you, Mike. Will get to this soon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)

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.