Talk:The Whistleblower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Whistleblower is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2014.

Photo of director[edit]

Larysa Kondracki

Photo of directory Larysa Kondracki, if anyone has a use for it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a little late, but thank you! --1ST7 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

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[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the 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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. 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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

POV?[edit]

In copyediting this article, I'm concerned about the film's (unstated) neutrality. The UN and Kosovo Force (a NATO initiative under UN mandate, for whom DynCorp recruited U.S. forces) seem to be conflated, and the foreignpolicy.com source extensively cited is a blog. If the film has an anti-UN bias (I haven't seen it), I think this should be mentioned in an article about it. Miniapolis 15:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Foreign Policy reference is acceptable. Just because it says "blog" does not mean it is invalid. See the second paragraph of WP:UGC. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it meets WP:RS; the UN-is-bad rhetoric has a familiar ring, and if the film's producers chose to transfer blame from NATO (where it properly belongs, since the UN had withdrawn its own peacekeepers years earlier) to the UN for the sake of the U.S. market, the film is true enough to recognizable events that this should be noted in the article. In any case, that's for the FA reviewers to sort out. All the best, Miniapolis 16:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the copyedit. I personally think that source is all right (the Foreign Policy article describes it as a magazine, not a blog, and there didn't seem to be an issue during the GA review). The film is accurate in that it was the UN that was involved in this incident in the 1990s (not NATO). See here. However, I don't think the film is particularly anti-UN. It opposes immunity and urges accountability, but it doesn't paint the UN in a negative light overall.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to copyedit the article. I appreciate it. --1ST7 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure; the subject is interesting, and I'll finish the copyedit tomorrow. Good luck with FA and all the best, Miniapolis 01:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Misidentified photo[edit]

Shockingly, File:Christina Piovesan at the Genie Awards on March 8, 2012.jpg is a picture of Christina Piovesan, not Kathryn Bolkovac, despite - up until ten minutes ago - being falsely used as a picture of her widely - despite very clearly saying who it is in the filename. How did this not get caught at FAC? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Up until about a week ago the photo was labelled as "Kathryn Bolkovac at the Genie Awards on March 8, 2012". --1ST7 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense, then. Mind ye, the photo might still be good for the article - Piovesan is, after all, still connected with the movie. (Also, the original ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-langford/6822697154/in/set-72157629186948068 ) has a better picture of Larysa Kondracki than the ope in the article). I presume that the right to release the image isn't in doubt? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)