Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Whistleblower/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Whistleblower

Nominator(s): 1ST7 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2010 thriller film inspired by Nebraska police officer Kathryn Bolkovac's account of human trafficking in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. It passed as a GA in October 2013 and underwent a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors in December 2013, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. 1ST7 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Why so many citations in the lead?
Long quotes like "I completely understand..." should be blockquoted
Use a consistent date format
FN4: author?
FN16: formatting is not consistent with other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. I've removed the citations from the lead, blockquoted the "I completely understand..." quote, made the dating format consistent, added the author for ref no. 4, and made ref no. 16 consistent with the other refs. --1ST7 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 1ST7, that was just an example of a long quote - generally anything over 40 words should be blockquoted, so there's a few more to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. All quotes longer than 40 words are now blockquoted. --1ST7 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. High quality article, meticulous use of sourcing throughout. My only minor quibble would be to suggest renaming the long section name of Response from the United Nations and DynCorp International to the shorter recommendation of simply, Aftermath. Excellent effort overall. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support. I've renamed the section as you suggested. --1ST7 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great article. Just some points I felt I had to bring up. In the third paragraph of the lede:
...The film received mixed reviews: the performances by Weisz and her costars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive. I suggest you reword this as "The film received mixed reviews. The performances by Weisz and her co-stars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive."

The first sentence of the "Reviews" section could be worded better. The sentence currently reads ...Rottentomatoes.com graded the film 74 percent, with a rating of 6.5/10. Out of 109 reviews, 81 were positive." A look at Rotten Tomatoes indicates that 115 critics have reviewed the film. I suggest you change the sentence to: "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 74% approval rating based on reviews from 115 critics, with an average score of 6.5/10. The website reported the critical consensus as "Rachel Weisz puts on a compelling smoldering act though the film suffers from a literal-minded approach to the material"."

Other than that, the article looks great. I'm happy to support this for FA. 23 editor (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support. I've made the changes you suggested. --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Eight images in total. First is the film poster with a good non-free rationale. The image of Balkovac is ok despite Flickrbot never tagging it as good for whatever reason. For all the other images their free status checks out. Wizardman 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! --1ST7 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just wanted to stop by and reiterate my Support for promotion of this article to Featured quality. Since my original comment at the FAC, the nominator responded politely and swiftly to my recommendation, and it has had a successful Source Review and Image Review. I went over the article again and it only looks better since then. It's well-referenced, well-structured, and well-presented. Great quality improvement effort by 1ST7. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Sadly this nomination has stalled and I will archive it shortly. The nom has been running since Christmas but there have been no new reviews for some weeks. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.