Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nefarious: Merchant of Souls/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 promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC).

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors, it has passed a good article nomination, and I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. Neelix (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:9.000919_Pattaya_streetscene5.jpg: wouldn't this be licensed as a US government work, if it was created for the State Department? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I have replaced the licence tag on that image. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, as prior GA Reviewer. The article is educational, encyclopedic, and quite well referenced. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT - I found this to be an interesting and informative read. With specific attention to the FA criteria, this is a well-written compelling article, relying on a wide variety of consistently-formatted reliable sources that support comprehensive coverage of the subject. I don't detect any shortcomings in the article's breadth, and find its structure in keeping within the guidelines of the MOS and other relevant policies. The article is presented without any concerns regarding neutralty or stability. I have not checked the images myself, but being familiar with Neelix's other work, deferring to Nikkimaria's keen eye in image reviews (which appears above), and that the article has gone through a copy-edit and GA prior to FAC, I am confident that the images are likely sufficiently tagged, and previously cleared. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - as earlier copy editor I found the article to be well written, well presented, well researched and the subject to be of interest and informative. - Iztwoz (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments - Nothing oppose worthy. Some comments though -
 * The caption to File:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.jpg suggests it is a scene from the film.
 * I think it needs to be made explicit that Movieguide is a site "dedicated to redeeming the values of the entertainment industry, according to biblical principles" and not a generalist movie site. While this perspective may be immediately obvious from publications such as Godculture Magazine, it's not so for Movieguide.
 * Can you comment on the reliability of Godculture Magazine and The Phantom Tollbooth?
 * What is You Are Beautiful: A Journey of Discovery used to source? If it's just that Nolot is the founder and president of Exodus Cry, can't you just use a primary source instead?
 * Be explicit that The Rome International Film Festival is in Rome, Georgia to remove confusion between it and the International Rome Film Festival.
 * hahnch e n 16:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I have clarified that the Pattaya photograph is not a scene from the film, made explicit the nature of Movieguide, replaced the You Are Beautiful source with a primary source, and specified that The Rome International Film Festival is in Rome, Georgia. I believe that Godculture Magazine and The Phantom Tollbooth are both reliable sources; both magazines have writers and editors on staff to ensure journalistic integrity. If you have specific concerns regarding these sources, I would be glad to look into them for you. Neelix (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is very well-written and appears to meet FA criteria. There's just one thing that I think is a little strange: the "Contents" section makes reference to "groups of girls who appear to range in age from early to late teens offering sexual services to customers, many of whom are middle-aged, white Western men". I watched the documentary a week ago and don't recall there being any specific attention drawn to the clients' ethnicities or countries of origin, so this seems more like a personal observation than one made by the producers. --1ST7 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and comments. I have removed the final clause from the sentence you mention. Neelix (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Some problems can be fixed easily: the quotations without sources; prose such as "in the spring of 2012, on May 1".


 * On criterion 1a. From first para of "Contents"... "implicitly naked" (what does "implicitly" mean here?); "One girl is seen to be dragged" (why "seen to be"?); "The girls are then brutally abused" (isn't what has happened up to then brutal? What is the brutal bit? Is this happening to the people remaining in the room after one has been taken out?); "markets in Berlin" (what kind of markets?); "Among legal prostitution in cities, the slavery goes unnoticed" (should be "amidst"? Why is it classed as slavery? This is the first main text mention of "slave"). There is also the contradiction of "The first scene of the film is a re-enactment of a kidnapping" with "The film starts with the assertion that slavery has not been abolished" in "Analysis".


 * I question the use of "girls" throughout – are they women (as defined by laws) or girls? How is the reader to distinguish when "girls" refers to those under a certain age?


 * The problem that cannot be fixed with ease is the structure. The first section is "Contents". Next is "Production", with the sub-heading "Interviews". Interviews describes more content, so is not about production. Inevitably, there is repetition across the sections. Some parts appear to be unconnected to the surrounding text; for instance: "Before Nefarious was completed, one of the former prostitutes interviewed for the film returned to prostitution" is in "Filming"; and "Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves argues that there are 27 million slaves in the world" isn't connected to anything. "Analysis" begins with a description of what the film is about; as this is after whole sections describing the film, most of it could go in an introductory section.


 * The smaller things (as in the criterion 1a bit above, on one para) could be fixed, but could take a long time. However, the structure – of both the article as a whole and within sections of it – needs a rethink before desired levels of cohesion and coherence are reached. EddieHugh (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for voicing your concerns. I have added supplementary citations directly after every citation, reworded some of the prose for clarity, removed the words "seen to be", specified that the markets being referred to are sex markets, switched "among" to "amidst", clarified that people who are kidnapped and then forced into labour are slaves, and clarified that the starting assertion does not take place at the very beginning of the film. I have also restructured the article by moving the "Interviews" subsection to the "Contents" section, moving the "Analysis" section to the beginning and renaming it "Themes", moving the statement about the interviewee to the "Interviews" subsection, and clarifying that Kevin Bales appears in the film. The words "girls" and "women" both appear in the article in different contexts, although most of the human trafficking victims dealt with in the film (particularly in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe) are too young to be considered adults, so the word "girls" appears most commonly. I believe that the correct word is used in each case, but I would be glad to look further into any particular instance you find problematic. Are there any remaining structural, prosaic, or other issues you would like me to address? Neelix (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I didn't address your question about the statement "implicitly naked". This was the solution reached on the article's talk page to the seeming contradiction between there being no nudity in the film despite the film starting by depicting a group of naked girls. It is clear that they are naked, but there are no breasts or pelvic areas shown on-screen. If you can think of a clearer way of phrasing this, I am open to recommendations. Neelix (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the phrasing used right now is fine; there isn't really a better alternative, as simply describing them as naked would seem contradictory to the text that says that the documentary contains no nudity. As a side note, I noticed that the "Re-enactments and live footage" section describes the events in the opening scene as taking place "in a small European town, possibly in Moldova", but the trafficking victim narrating the incident says it was an apartment building near Belgrade, Serbia (seen here). Can this please be fixed? --1ST7 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the location error; I have corrected this statement and moved the information about Moldova to the "Themes" section. Neelix (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the changes: I think that the structure is much more logical now. "ordered to remove their clothes" instead of "implicitly naked"? Remove contractions ("didn't").... Having followed up some of the sources, my major concern comes from a combination of the niche nature of the topic (a Christian documentary) and time since it was released. Specifically, in relation to the FA criteria: 1b) "places the subject in context" – how does Nefarious compare with other documentaries, etc. on the same topic (from a Christian perspective and any other)? To what extent has this topic been explored on film previously? 1c) This is tricky, because almost all of the lit cited is faith-based, so has an interest in being positive about the film. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about WP policy on this could step in with a more informed comment, perhaps on interpreting WP: BIASED. I am definitely wary of the implicit level of assumption about the film's claims being accurate. E.g., para 3 of "Themes" runs through lots of 'facts', which are sourced from reviews of the film citing the film. Take the CIA assertion... the source has "the third largest industry"; nj.com has "one of the largest criminal industries in the world — second only to drugs": industry or illegal industry? Simply adding "the film states that" or similar is not, in my opinion, sufficient for 1c or 1d. This leads to a combination of 1b, 1c and 1d objections: if the currently available sources are likely to view it favourably and repeat its assertions, and the film has been out for 2 years on a very limited release that is ongoing (according to its website), waiting for more independent sources to appear seems sensible before it can be claimed that the article "exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards". This is not a criticism of the proposer or others, but a suggestion that the required standard may be unattainable at the moment. EddieHugh (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you approve of the new structure. I have reworded the statement about nudity, and have replaced the contractions. I have also added a Fox News article that cites the CIA statistic to confirm its accuracy. Please let me know if you have concerns about any of the other statistics cited in articles reviewing the film. Considering that the film was released two years ago, I think it unlikely that many additional non-faith-based sources are going to publish new reviews of the film. The contextual and non-faith-based reviews you are looking for seem unlikely to ever exist, although the film has received a variety of awards from non-faith-based film festivals, and these are documented in the article. I am under the impression that FA criteria 1 b-d are satisfied if the existing sources on the subject are exhaustively employed; that has been my experience with past FAs, such as with Kellie Loder and When God Writes Your Love Story. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. Have you seen articles prevented from FA promotion because of a lack of existing sources providing an alternate perspective? Neelix (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd do go for all of the facts in that section. The two sources on the CIA do not really match: one has "human trafficking"; the other has "the sale of women". Taking the criteria literally, exhausting the sources is sufficient, but that is what I question, as the neutrality of those sources (as well as how well the topic can be covered by them) is debatable; so I asked for input from others. With the two you mention... Loder is clearly described as a "Contemporary Christian" musician, so I wouldn't expect much comment on her outside that area; WGWYLS is, I argue, a) a Christian book that is b) about love/relationships, so again I would not expect many sources from outside the Christian market. Nefarious, I suggest, is (or is presented as being) a) a film about trafficking that b) also incorporates a Christian angle. I would, therefore, expect to see more of what I mentioned in my previous post. EddieHugh (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Exodus Cry, the film's distributor, asking them if they would send me the citation information for the primary sources for the statistics included in the "Themes" section of the article. I have also requested that they let me know of any reviews of the film that are not already included in the article. At present, there are just as many secular reviews in the article's "Critical response" section as there are faith-based reviews; there are four secular reviews (Indian Life Newspaper, The News of Cumberland County, South China Morning Post, and The Review) and four faith-based reviews (Charisma, Movieguide, The Phantom Tollbooth, and Godculture Magazine). If you know of any more reviews of the film, I would be glad to include them; I am running out of places to look. Neelix (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found primary sources for all but one of the statistics quoted from other organizations in the "Themes" section, and have added them to the article. The remaining statistic (the CIA one you mention) I have removed from the article until such point that the CIA primary source is discovered. I have scraped the bottom of the barrel of Google and have turned up five additional sources, which I have added to the article. Two of these (Star News Daily and News Weekly) are secular reviews which have been added to the "Critical response" section. I have searched through several journal databases through my local library and have turned up no new sources. A librarian helped me search, and told me that there are likely no other reviews to find. Please let me know if you feel that there is anything further that I can do to improve the article. Neelix (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Neelix asked me for my thoughts (as I had supported the article earlier above) on your comments, Eddie, and I responded to him on my talk page. He asked if I'd copy them here. A couple of points: Just a few thoughts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is that documentaries usually don't get much attention by film critics or reviewers. If there are no negative film reviews, citing positive reviews is not giving undue weight to positive reviews. By analogue: It's not undue weight to say the sky is blue during the day just because no source exists that says "it's green." See WP:RSUW.
 * If there are no negative reviews, then it is such criticism a non-existent viewpoint. There's no obligation to talk about negative criticism--in this case, that would violate WP:UNDUE by giving a platform to a viewpoint that doesn't exist.
 * If there's no source comparing it to other documentaries, there's no source. To start comparing it to other documentaries without sources making those comparisons would likely violate original research
 * This is about the one movie that is the subject of the article, while you can mention comparison to other films (if such discussion is supported by sources), however, it has to be kept within scope so as to not divert focus from the article's subject.
 * If you've covered all that's available about it, and there are no other sources that offer new angles or different angles, then it generally meets the 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (and representative survey of the relevant literature) criteria. You can't neglect a viewpoint if it doesn't exist. (again, WP:RSUW). If a viewpoint doesn't exist, 1b and 1c can't be held against you for not covering it.


 * Thanks for the comments. I don't disagree. Reducing to the absurd, if there were a tiny number of limited sources, a very short (but complete to the extent possible) article on any topic could be created. It would not become a FA (I'd hope). There is, therefore, a point at which the availability of source material limits how far an article can go in the grading system. The question here is whether or not Nefarious can reach FA quality using the sources available. In my opinion, as all sources have been used, it cannot. I'm happy to be contradicted / outvoted / outranked on this, but my opinion remains. EddieHugh (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your added clarification. My impression is that the point at which the limited availability of source material prevents an article from being featured is the same point at which such limited availability prevents an article from meeting the notability guidelines; a subject about which there does not exist a sufficient amount of sources to create a featured article does not merit an article at all. Neelix (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with the opinion that the sources are insufficient. The article's coverage appears comprehensive and includes both secular and faith-based sources. --1ST7 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've read over the above exchange and revsited the article again. It appears that has indeed made a good faith effort to do his due diligence with regards to sourcing, and made sure to do his best with regards to exaustively using the majority of available secondary sources out there. The Accolades section appears to complement this and seems quite comprehensive and well-sourced, as well. I hope this reassessment was helpful, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Review from Cliftonian
Support. I have given this a fresh read-through and I now feel comfortable backing for FA. Well done Neelix. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hope these points are useful. – Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of spelling points: "fraudulant" may for all I know be a permissible spelling in US dictionaries, but I have only ever seen it as "fraudulent". And "materialises" looks strange in an article that otherwise uses "–ize" spellings.
 * There are many blue links that seem to me to come under the heading of WP:OVERLINK, for example, "attempted murder", "converting to Christianity", "grassroots", "home video", "profanity", "nudity", "slavery", "abolished", "political corruption", "complicity", "luxury goods", "glamorous", "child abandonment", "orphanages", "kidnapped", "organized criminals", "hard drugs", "mind control", "sexual and physical abuse", "soft light", "physically abusing", "threatening" … and so on and on and on. Some, such as "luxury goods" are even linked more than once. As the Manual of Style says, "Ask yourself, 'How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?'", and in the case of, e.g., "raising awareness", "prayer meeting", "filming locations", "social issues" et hoc genus omne the answer surely is, "Not at all". The MoS very rightly observes, "Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting, and may slow the reader down".


 * Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the spelling of the words you indicate and have reduced the overlinking in the article, removing the links you list as well as others. I have also used a tool to ensure that there are no duplicate links in the article. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Support – This is a shorter article than one is used to seeing at FAC (and none the worse for that after some of the interminable articles about, e.g., Bollywood films we have had up for FA) but as far as I can see it covers all relevant points adequately, and it is in good prose, has no conspicuous bias and is well illustrated and referenced. It seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Note -- I realise a good deal of discussion has gone on re. breadth and quality of sourcing but I don't think I've seen a source review for formatting, so will request one at WT:FAC. On the subject of sourcing, I've read Eddie's comments with interest, but I think several other reviewers have provided arguments that rebut the concerns raised. I will however await the source review and any further comments from Cliftonian before considering promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The references all seem to be formatted correctly. All names are formatted as "Firstname Lastname", all dates are formatted the same way, templates are used to prevent many problems, and I see no spacing or punctuation errors. My five spotchecks reveal the statements fully supported without plagiarism. – Quadell (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Source check

Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.