Talk:The Whistleblower/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey 1ST7, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review! --1ST7 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Bolkovac was reportedly fired and forced out of the country after attempting to report and shut down the ring." -- since she won the lawsuit, I think "reportedly" can be removed here. (In any case, it's established fact that she was fired, right? It's just the cause that was disputed.)

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Huffington Post isn't a reliable source by wiki standards due to lack of editorial oversight-- can you find another source for the psuedonym? (this is the article in question)

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "her aunt's husband" -- Raya or Luba's aunt?

Raya's; I've fixed the wording to make that more clear. --1ST7 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "authority figures " -- is it possible to be more specific about their positions? I'm hoping to watch this movie tonight or tomorrow (it's on Netflix instant viewing), I'll make a note if I can.

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• " she sends an email entitled" -- the she here is Kathryn, right, not a posthumous e-mail from Raya?

Yes, it's Kathryn. I've changed "she" to "Kathryn" so there's no confusion. --1ST7 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• The David and Goliath image is probably too tangential to keep when there are so many other quality images in the article. Would you be willing to cut it?

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Mrs. and Little Miss Khazar are about to get home... more soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say--just like last time, I'll make some tweaks, etc. as I go. Feel free to revert any you disagree with (and keep an eye on me that I'm not inadvertently adding any error.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• " For legal reasons, the pseudonym Democra Security was used for DynCorp International, the organization whose employees reportedly participated in and facilitated the sexual enslavement of the women." -- needs citation. Does the Lynch citation cover this, too?

 Done I accidentally deleted the Lynch citation from that sentence while adding it to the plot section. --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Viewers are left with the impression that "the worst violence in Bolkovac's story was the violence done to justice"" -- this is probably close enough to interpretation that you should say "According to X,"

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "with critics giving it both a positive and mixed review" -- this is a little confusing. Why is the Whitman review appended to the sentence about Metacritic. I think the standard is to use Metacritic's own words here: "The review aggregator Metacritic gave the film a 59 out of 100, indicating 'mixed or average reviews'".

 Done I'm not sure why that was there, but I believe the first paragraph of the review section was already written when I started editing the article. Thanks for pointing it out. --1ST7 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Other UN officials reportedly attempted to downplay the events depicted, and initiatives against trafficking in Bosnia were aborted." -- the chronology of this is a little confusing here. It sounds like the initiatives against trafficking had been cancelled before the movie's release, right?

It's a little unclear in the source: "Such was the crisis sparked by the ensuing film last year that the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, was obliged in October to stage a special screening and to pledge action. But now it emerges that senior UN officials tried to belittle the film and play it down, while the whistleblower herself warns that, for all the UN's professed resolve, 'unfortunately, the widespread horror is already there. This is not going to be simple or a quick fix.' Moreover, the UN has shut down effective anti-trafficking initiatives by its own gender affairs chief in Bosnia." I got the impression that this is most likely a reference to the initiatives promised by Ban Ki-moon in response to the film, so I'll reword it to reflect that better. --1ST7 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that is a bit unclear. Your revision looks good to me, though I added something saying the report was from the Guardian if that's ok. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• " Following the release of The Whistleblower in theatres, it was reported that, in addition to Bosnia, peacekeepers had perpetrated human rights violations in Nigeria, Kosovo, Burundi, Sierra Leone, the Congo, Liberia, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Colombia, Guinea, and Sudan." -- It's worth mentioning that this is based on Bolkovac's own report-- "it was reported that" makes it sounds a little more verified than that. (Not that I doubt Bolkovac, but still better to be clear and neutral.)

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall, this looks like another strong contribution, and close to promotion. Let me know your thoughts on the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments and the copyediting. I'll try to cover everything you mentioned. --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything has been addressed. Thanks again for the review! --1ST7 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor clarity point above (chronology). Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One statement appears to need citation.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A few statements/claims should probably have in-text attribution (see above); the metacritic statement could be rephrased.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA