Talk:Lifemark

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Lifemark is the first Kendrick Brothers film to be based on a real life story? Source: https://www.christianpost.com/news/kendricks-film-lifemark-takes-bold-stand-for-life-post-roe.html
  • ALT1: ... that despite the commercial success of previous Kendrick Brothers films, star Kirk Cameron says Lifemark was unable to secure a distributor due to its pro-life stance? Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/cowardice-kirk-cameron-slams-hollywood-studios-that-passed-on-lifemark-with-message-about-life
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/IBM PS/2 Model 25

Created by Jclemens (talk). Self-nominated at 04:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC).

• ALT1 is probably dead, as an editor has contested the quote to dailywire.com as insufficiently reliable for a BLP quote. The quote was picked up in a number of Christian news outlets, but unless someone really likes it better, I'm OK with running with the first hook. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  ... and now Bloomberg has picked up the statement at [1], so ALT1 is alive and well again. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Citations missing in the cast section. The sentence starting "A novelization by Chris Fabry..." also needs a citation.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I note that WP:PLOTSOURCE allows for the plot section to be unreferenced. Once the other areas noted above are cited this should be good to go. CSJJ104 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

CSJJ104 Sourcing added as requested, but I'll note that MOS:FILMCAST says nothing about how to cite a cast, other than that uncredited roles need citations. I've added a citation to the first actor, which covers the entire cast in the review, so hopefully that's sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Jclemons - You are correct that it is not stated that cast lists need to be cited, but neither is it stated that they can be left uncited. As this information comes under BLP I was being cautious. I am happy with the citations provided and am willing to mark this review as passed. CSJJ104 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability, sourcing

RSes are local coverage and there's way too much from blatant non-RSes, e.g. I really don't see how Crosswalk passes muster as an RS. Is this the best there is for this film? - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Crosswalk is one of many news sites that cater to Christian interests owned by Salem Media Group. Do you have anything other than your personal opinion that it's non-RS? It's not mentioned in RSP, and the only time I find it in RSN archives is regarding the reliability of JesusFreakHideout.

Regarding notability The Advocate (Louisiana) is Louisiana's largest daily. Christian Post, Baptist Press, and Crux are all national American sites. KBZK is a local station, but that's really the only reference that can legitimately be called "local" Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through RSN for everything, and I don't find anything used in the article listed as a dubious or unreliable source, especially for content related to faith-based films. I'll note that the majority of sources used (with a few obvious exceptions, such as the film's own website) are provided by Google News' topical search on Lifemark, and I've avoided ones like The Washington Examiner that I know to be problematic. Thus, if there's not a widespread failure of the various sources here to be reliable, there's no serious question about notability, correct?

There's nothing on this talk page complaining about any non-encyclopedic language; comparing it to similar Christian films, I am not seeing any particular differences.

Also, the relevant notability guideline, is NFILM, not NORG, so I've updated that.

David Gerard please provide specific, actionable criticisms that I can either address or refute. Obviously, the coverage of this film is expected to expand substantially upon release. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Erm, how is Crosswalk an RS? How does it connote notability? Not specifically being mentioned as problematic at RSP does not mean "great site, go for it." How does it meet the criteria at RS? How does it connote notability for NFILM?

NFILM is about films, not faith-based films. The claim related to faith-based films seems to be trying to excuse obviously deficient sourcing as a claim of specialist coverage - when general notability requires not claiming exceptions for specialist coverage.

If it'll have more coverage when it comes out, that's nice. Until then, it shouldn't really be patched up with deficient and clearly promotional sources.

The tone of the article was promotional and editorialised. You wrote Due to the political "hot button" of abortion filmmaking in 2022, Kendrick Brothers were unable to secure a distributor for the film, despite their previous commercial successes in wiki voice. But the source, Crosswalk, actually says only: Even so, Hollywood studios refused to distribute Lifemark due to its pro-life theme, Alex Kendrick says. No "hot button", and even the source says it's only a claim from Kendrick.

Actionable: restrict it to clearly neutral phrasing of statements from neutral mainstream RSes per NFILM, not sources heavily invested in promoting the concept - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so first topic: reliable sources. Do you have any objections to any source other than Crosswalk.com?

As regards to Crosswalk.com, a brief Wikipedia search shows that it is used in a substantial number (I didn't count, feel free to) of other Wikipedia topics, to substantiate factual information about topics of interest to Christians. Again, it is owned by Salem Media Group, a media conglomerate catering to Christians. It has a nearly 30 year history, ancient by web standards, and won awards back in the '90s. If you have a specific indictment for its reliability, please post it, as Wikipedia appears to have no problem relying on Crosswalk.com in other contexts, and the evidence I see shows no reason why Wikipedia should have a problem.

NFILM relies on the GNG for current films. Lifemark is covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. "mainstream" appears nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Regardless of whether or not you believe that Crosswalk.com is notable, please articulate any remaining notability concerns you may have, even assuming that source were to be removed from the article.

I note you have not identified any current tone issues. Do any remain, either with existing text or as I have been expanding it?

Absent concrete answers on these topics explaining policy-based reasons why the banner notices on the article should reasonably stay, I expect to remove them.

You may also note that I placed discretionary sanctions notices on the talk pages for both this article and yourself, David Gerard. I trust that adhering to the highest standards of Wikipedia editing is something that you already endorse. Please let me know if you think any edit might be inappropriate; I will be happy to let you know ahead of time if I believe an edit would be inappropriate under those rules. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have given concrete reasons. You have written a promotional article with bad sourcing. You appear unwilling or unable to accept that you have written an article with serious problems. It still reads like a press release.

There is no reason to think crosswalk.com is an RS for film. It certainly isn't a general one, it's an evangelical site whose primary concern is the promotion of Christianity. That's fine, but it doesn't make it a good Wikipedia source for anything other than its own statements. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually considered a losing argument on Wikipedia.

I must note that as this article is under the discretionary sanctions - and you concur on this - then we need as soon as possible to strip it back only to neutral statements based on clear RSes. Any article under DS must use only the clearest RSes. Barring objections, I can proceed with this this evening. Then the tags could be removed. - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you aren't helping me improve the article. You've not added anything to the argument against Crosswalk.com as an RS. Nevertheless, I've reduced its use to the single de-aging statement, as that tidbit (which is clearly interesting, encyclopedic for a film article, and non-controversial) hasn't come up yet in other sources I've encountered. As a direct quote from the Crosswalk.com article, that statement would certainly be permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF. Nevertheless, Crosswalk.com does not qualify under WP:NOTRS, unless one were to consider being pro-life an extremist position--an assumption of bad faith that I think would itself run afoul of the discretionary sanctions regarding abortion. In noting the fact that other articles cite crosswalk.com extensively, I'm well aware that you routinely remove links to news sites that are considered unreliable on WP:RSP, such as CNS News. Thus, if it were truly unreliable, I would expect to see an RSP entry and you removing it, which I have not. I'll note that this is the third time I've asked for specific, policy-based reasoning why Crosswalk.com is not an RS.

With respect to tone, I'll note that per WP:NPOV, we are to be relying on what has been published by reliable sources. (again, I'll note proactively that the word "mainstream" only appears in the non-relevant sections WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE) I have searched Google and Bing for sources, and I have not found a single critical/skeptical/negative article about the movie. I have found overall positive reviews and coverage, both in RS and non-RS, but those disliking the movie do not appear to be represented in RS'es that I can see. I do not pretend to have insight into why the RS coverage is universally positive, but we cannot compel RS'es to cover topics in certain lights, and were we to try, that would itself be a WP:DUE violation.

With regard to discretionary sanctions, I'll note that I was one of the drafting arbitrators in the 2011 case that enacted them for this topic area. While I have a rather good memory for what I shepherded through the arbitration process, I have re-read the case's conclusions, and find nothing in it specifically demanding "mainstream" sources, or implying that those with one particular philosophical orientation or another are unacceptable.

So, to summarize: The sources used are reliable (or at least, not unreliable), thus the article is notable, and the tone matches that found in RS'es. As such, I do not expect you to actually remove anything substantial from the article, as policy does not support that. If you believe yourself to be correct, I would encourage you to seek a WP:3O next, rather than attempting to remove sourced content when you alone dispute its reliability; such could readily be construed as WP:DE. I welcome any further efforts to rephrase, expand, or otherwise improve the wording in the article based on the existing sourcing or any new RS'es you are able to find. Likewise, I absolutely welcome you giving me a "to do" list of specific, actionable items for improving the article. At this point, I cannot see how the either the notability, tone, or reliable sources tags apply, but out of an abundance of good faith am encouraging you to substantiate their presence and the conditions under which you believe they should be removed, or to alternatively remove them yourself. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You've added more actual cites, so that's good enough to pass prima facie notability. The tone is still press-release-like. Is there an RS for the cast? - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Parts of the cast list appear in various pieces, and Long has the one piece about her, but IMDB and the official website are the sources (likely cross-reliant) that I used for the cast list.

As far as tone.... I haven't seen anyone trashing it. I'm sure after release someone will, and then we'll include that as DUE, but I can't follow/quote/paraphrase what's not there, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

David Gerard Ok, first negative review is in--note that's from a Christian source, mainstream media aren't reviewing it. Two more sources for consideration: this seems too much like a coatrack; I really don't think we need to add BLP criticism of someone retweeting about a movie in line with their already-known personal religious beliefs. this seems like it would fit somewhere... but it covers a lot in one article, and it's really the only unquestionably mainstream source I've seen on it. What do you think should be done with it?

Oh, and is the movie balanced enough with my latest addition for you to remove the tone tag? Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Added more RS commentary, integrated the Bloomberg source, Rotten Tomatoes, National Catholic Register. I've marked everything resolved. If you want to take out the Crosswalk.com quote, I suppose that's better than readding the tag, but it's replaceable from the National Catholic Register commentary that says almost the same thing. As promised, after release we have WAY more commentary and sourcing overall. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Reception

I'm not understanding a policy-based reason why the deleted reception material is inappropriate. Can someone care to enlighten me, TropicAces. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t assign a percentage until after five reviews, so to include the site on here before an actual rating is assigned is disingenuous. As far as the audience score goes, it’s well-established we don’t include things like that in articles (similar to IMDb ratings). And for speculating what a CinemaScore would be based on previous works, that’s just projecting; it would be like saying “the Patriots haven’t played a game, but they did well in the past so they’re getting a ring for this upcoming season;” each film is new. TropicAces (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)tropicAces

RT isn't likely to find five reviews, because mainstream media are ignoring the film, so we are faced with the option to cover nothing, your preference, or cover what we do have, mine. Cinemascore violated its own stated rules (auto-review anything over 1500 theaters, Lifemark opened in 1530, yet no cinemascore) to not score the audience, so RT's audience meter is among the best equivalents. It's pretty clear that the niche audience who likes Kendrick Brothers' movies enough to attend on opening day will always give them an A+, even though Overcomer and War Room were pretty pedestrian films. How do we best capture the conspicuous lack of Cinemascore here? Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)