Talk:Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Nudity

Summary states that there is no nudity in the film....but the synopsis says that the girls are naked in the first scene..?Iztwoz (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the situation and from the shots shown (such as shoulders-up shots) that the girls are naked, but there are no shots of their breasts or pelvic areas. Can you think of a way of making this clearer in the text? Neelix (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier but my broadband was downIztwoz (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nefarious: Merchant of Souls/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 28, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Quite well written throughout, only a few suggestions on this one:

1. American - word should be wikilinked in the lede.
2. Documentary film - first instance of phrase should be wikilinked in the lede.
3. Synopsis - sect title like this is more for fiction. Perhaps try "Contents" as sect title, instead?
4. Interviews - this sect should really be a sub sect of the "Production" sect, as that's what it is part of.
5. Production - can this be broken up into sub sub sects, and then expand it a bit more? Something like Writing, Inspiration, Filming, Finance, stuff like that? Not necessarily in that order.
6. More suggestions on better structural organization at WP:MOSFILM. Just a few would improve it, not all are necessary.
7. Release - suggest breaking up into 2 sub sects under this, for "Screenings" and "Home media", or something like that.
8. Analysis = this is good. I really like this sect a lot.
9. Reception = any chance "Critical response" can be expanded with a bit more secondary sources?
10. Accolades = could this be presented in a tabular format, instead?
11. Missing = any chance there could be added a See also sect with some relevant links, 4 or 5 or so, and portals? And also, a Further reading sect with some suggested further reading for readers and editors that might be interested to learn more about the topics?

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Some issues about thoroughness and structure, see above recommendations.

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone usage, no issues here.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history, article is stable going back a period of over 2 months.

6. Images?: Maybe you could expand the fair use rationale for the image page, drawing on some ideas from File:Batman Begins Poster.jpg?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have linked the first instances of "American" and "documentary film", switched the "Synopsis" header to "Contents", made the "Interviews" section a subsection of the "Production" section, broken up the "Release" section into two subsections, added another source to the "Critical response" section, converted the "Accolades" section to a tabular format, added a "See also" section with relevant links and portals, added a "Further reading" section with suggested further reading, and expanded the image fair use rationale by drawing on the Batman Begins poster as an example. I would like to expand the "Production" and "Critical response" sections as you recommend, but I have not been successful in tracking down additional sources with which to supply the additional information. I have requested a copy of the film from my local library in hopes that there is bonus material that will provide more information on production. I was unsure as to what organization tips I should implement from WP:MOSFILM. Are there any in particular that you'd recommend? Neelix (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review passed

Looks a bit better, thanks very much for the responsiveness to the above recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Presented from a Christian worldview?"

Is there a source for this? It's in the first line; no source is given, and it seems surprising, given that the Christian Bible promotes slavery in general and also the taking of women as sex slaves (Source: Leviticus 25:44-46 (slaves have subhuman status and are property), Exodus 21:2-6 (people may be coerced to remain in slavery), Exodus 21:7-11(sex slavery in particular), Exodus 21:20-21 (violence against such slaves is ok), Ephesians 6:5 (slaves should accept their situation and not try to change it), 1 Timothy 6:1-2 (slaves should work harder to please their owners), amongst plenty of others). Is this the worldview that that the documentary is taking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe what they mean by christian worldview is that its distorted to serve a christian agenda, namely that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own bodies to earn a living, unless its servicing a husband. The film conflates all forms of prostitution, including legal, safe and clean brothels in countries with regulated sex industries, with sex slavery. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)