Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/October 1 (film)/archive1

October 1 (film)

 * Nominator: voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

October 1 is a Nigerian thriller film, directed by Nollywood veteran Kunle Afolayan, about a detective investigating a series of murders on the eve of Nigerian independence. The film was critically praised in Nigeria and received over a dozen awards. Following a thorough GA review from and a helpful peer review from, I feel that this is ready for FAC. I look forward to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that my previous FAC was not promoted and a spot check was never done, I assume this will need one to pass, but I wanted to check. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * yes. You need a successful / passed FAC to be exempt from that requirement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay to list this in the image/source check requests? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this good to go? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done.


 * File:Morris_minor_october_1_(cropped).jpg: has evidence of permission been forwarded to VRT? If so, suggest adding the ticket to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's on the page for the image that this is cropped from. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC) (belatedly signed)
 * Ah, okay, thanks. I do think it would be worth repeating. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you know if there's a template for a derivative work? Technically the cropped version wasn't the photo reviewed by VRT, so it would be inaccurate to copy/paste the template there IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There's not a specific template AFAIK, but would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done using the template. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

 * Why does the article use dmy dates if the title of the movie itself uses mdy? May be a very minor discrepancy, but the date bot isn't going to work in thr articles current format
 * I used DMY because my understanding is that Nigerian English uses DMY, but I can change it if you think it's a major issue.


 * Wl flashback
 * Done


 * The plot uses "Kill" or "Killer" too many times, IMO; use some other words (murderer, menace, etc)
 * Done


 * - period can go inside quotes because of semicolon before
 * Done


 * Wl Toyota and Guinness
 * Done


 * Under "Themes", wl Nigeria's unification and independence
 * Done

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Much of the content under "Themes" feels like it would be better under "Reception", since they're all reviews; also, many of these quotes could easily be paraphrased, and would be better that way
 * I've paraphrased some of the quotes. Regarding your suggestion, I struggled with this in rewriting the article; which parts do you think should be in the "Reception" section?
 * , I should've clarified, sorry- the quotes can be cut entirely and just replaced with statements about the movie's themes. For example, can easily be distilled into "Critics noted that the psychological themes in the movie connected to political division of the time." Don't use that exact phrasing, since "psychological themes" is vague in my rewriting and in the prose as it stands- make sure to clarify that too MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done (mostly). I like this quote too much to cut it: "sharpen[ing] the veracity of a society torn apart by its tribalism". I also kept a couple of other quotes because I don't think there's a good way to paraphrase the language and fully capture the meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - what's golden effects?
 * Changed to "the filmmakers".


 * Critical reception: I think some of this can use a good pruning; cut repetitive quotes a paraphrase the rest
 * Done.
 * I've addressed your suggestions and have a question RE your suggestion on the "Themes" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded above. One more thing- in the "Accolades" table, add a column with the header Ref. and put the reference there MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - much better, very nice work! Also, if you get some time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FAC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim O'Doherty
Claiming a ticket. Review coming tomorrow at the latest. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the full thing last night, and skimmed it again today to catch anything I'd missed yesterday. I'd suggest running a few of the shorter paragraphs in "Production" and "Release" together, as well as removed "2014 in film" from "See also"; already subcategorised a bit in List of Nigerian films of 2014, but I'm not going to withdraw support over trivial matters like that. Support based on prose: I haven't done a source or comprehensiveness review, but I trust voorts's judgement here. This is a short article, and I've not caught any major flaws. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Addressed your concerns. Thanks for the support! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
Glad to see this article's made it to FAC! I'll be back for another review sometime later today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, here come the comments!


 * The most important concern: a quick Google search brings up a few scholarly sources that have not been referenced in the article. There's this paper on the thematic motifs, this chapter analyzing the film through the lens of human rights, and this paper going over the film's use of sets and costumes. There might be more. Being unfamiliar with this topic, I'm unsure if these sources will add anything new to the article, but they should at least be scanned to make sure the article meets criterion 1c (comprehensiveness).
 * Reviewing now.


 * "" I'd recommend moving the part about "Dust" into a new sentence, as the current phrasing is a bit confusing. Also, I'd put the WIP title in quotes.
 * Done


 * "" might be better quoted as "" or "".
 * Done


 * Perhaps change "" to "" since it's the first time they're being mentioned outside the cast list. Similarly with other cast members mentioned later in the prose.
 * Done


 * "" might be better as "".
 * Done


 * "" should use '".
 * Done


 * "" same issue brought up by MyCatIsAChonk earlier.
 * Done


 * Citation 4 repeats in consecutive sentences in § Release.
 * I'm not seeing it. Where?
 * It's a small fix, so I just went ahead and did it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Have to cut it short at the moment for an IRL obligation; I'll most likely come back for some more tomorrow. Let me know what you think so far, Voorts. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @TechnoSquirrel69: I've addressed most of your comments. For scholarly sources, I looked through Google Scholar, JSTOR, Project Muse, and ProQuest. There wasn't much in the way of sustained discussion of the film, and for what there was, some of the journals seemed kind of sketchy and some of the articles were poorly written or inadequately sourced. I avoided citing to those journals/articles because I'm not sure how reliable they are. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's understandable; I also excluded some papers from the list I gave you because they looked highly unreliable. These ones look okay, but I have no idea whether the journals they've been published in are reputable or not. I'll trust your judgment on that end — I mostly made the point to start a process to make sure the article is fairly representing the information available in reliable sources. Let me know if you find anything useful with the links I've sent or in other places. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the first two articles you cited to the "Themes" section, as well as one other article. I also added an academic review to the "Critical reception" section. The third article on mise-en-place that you cited had no citations and didn't seem paritcularly scholarly; I also am not sure about the quality of that journal. The rest of the sources I found seemed a little sketchy:, , , , , and , (published in Comic Sans; enough said).
 * Unrelated, but I added a couple of sentences on how the film was pirated to the "Release" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also conducted searches of Taylor & Francis, SpringerLink, Sage, and Oxford Academic; nothing new turned up. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing that! I just saw your edits and the added content looks pretty good on first glance. Like I said earlier, I'll trust your judgment on the reliability of the sources; they'll get another look during the source review anyways. More comments on their way tomorrow! (Also, they published in Comic Sans? Really?! XD) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: You should change the and  templates to  and  per the guidelines at FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note — good to know for my first FAC review. I suppose that means I can't use font in my comment on Comic Sans either, what a tragedy! Ah well, changing them over now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Another round of comments:


 * The brackets inside brackets in multiple places in § Release look really awkward and probably go against MOS:BRACKET. I'd recommend you lose the To USD templates and just format the text manually.
 * Done


 * In a similar vein, some currency figures have dollars followed by naira in brackets, but others are the reverse. The article should stick to one for consistency.
 * It's like that because the sources for the film's budget state the amount in USD, whereas the revenue sources state the revenue in Naira.


 * It's pretty standard for review aggregator scores to be mentioned in reception sections for films. I see in § External links that the film has a page on Rotten Tomatoes — I'd add that to the prose, along with other relevant aggregate scores, if they exist.
 * The RT link only has audience score, which would be unworthy of inclusion.  Gerald WL  05:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gerald Waldo Luis: Gotcha, thanks for checking that! Voorts, feel free to disregard this point. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Disregarded.


 * I'd recommend a pass for formatting in the references. Among other things, the references have inconsistent italicization and use of quotation marks for the film's title. I'd change them all to italicized without quotes across the board. I just did a pass of the prose and corrected any MOS:CURLY and MOS:DASH issues I could find, but keep an eye out for any more in case they slipped by me.
 * Fixed the italics issues. Good catch. I think the caps are consistent, as are the publication titles. I don't see any other issues.


 * Optionally, I'd love to see a copyedit of § Reception so it's more in line with the suggestions laid out in the Copyediting reception sections essay. I'll admit that the reviews seem to be suspicious in a similar way to the scholarly sources we were discussing earlier, but even so, I feel that boiling down an entire review to a single sentence or quote is not representative of the source's arguments.
 * Done. RE sourcing, the reviews in § Reception are all legit.

And I think that's it from me! Thanks for your timely work implementing my suggestions so far, and good luck with the rest of this FAC! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Really nice work, Voorts; this one's a well-earned support from me! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 15:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

GWL
Hey there! This overall seems pretty solid, but I have plenty of comments. Hopefully they are useful!  Gerald WL  09:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gerald Waldo Luis: Replied to everything. I have a couple of questions below. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Voorts, I did last tweaks to the table to adhere to accessibility guidelines. Overall I think with all that there is to the subject matter, it should make a good FA. I did however, find this scholarly source, which should fit in the themes section. Lemme know what you think-- after that it should be an easy support.  Gerald WL  05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that source and didn't cite it because I'm not sure how reliable that journal is. The article reads like an undergrad paper, IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also just dug into it a bit more, and it actually plagiarizes the "Critical reception" section of this article from before I started working on it: . I knew parts of the article looked familiar. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the first sentence of the article plagiarizes the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on Film. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Then this is an easy support. Good work!  Gerald WL  03:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Source review and spot-checks – pass

 * What makes Wakati Africa a high-quality reliable source?
 * Removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A timestamp for source 4 and 14 would be helpful.
 * Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes 360nobs a high-quality source? The article's author (George Wana) appears to be a blogger.
 * Removed.
 * What makes theeagleonline.com.ng a high-quality reliable source? The same for Olori SuperGal. And for Pulse.
 * Removed The Eagle and Olori SuperGal. Pulse is an established entertainment media outlet in Nigeria.
 * Just because Pulse is a recognized media outlet in Nigeria doesn't automatically guarantee its reliability. Take the Daily Mail in the UK, for instance—it's a top-selling daily newspaper but is known for questionable journalistic practices. To establish the credibility of Pulse, provide evidence like a news article vouching for its reliability, details about their fact-checking process, or a link to a reputable organization's website endorsing the source. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulse is ultimately owned by Ringier, which has an editorial policy, including the separation of fact reporting from commentary, disclosure of conflicts of interest, marking sponsored content, and adherence to prevailing standards within the media industry. There's also a consensus at WikiProject Nigeria that it's an RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Citation 40 might need a DOI.
 * It has one.
 * What makes e247mag.com a high-quality reliable source.
 * Removed.
 * While source 22 does write that the film had to be postponed by the producers, it doesn't say that it was due to additional post-production work.
 * Fixed
 * Source 58 should be marked as dead. Also, you should clarify in "film attempted to do too much, distracting from its cinematography, costume, production design and acting." that the critic liked the cinematography, costume, production design and acting.
 * Done
 * "Akande and other critics noted that audiences would recognize parallels between those themes and the Boko Haram insurgency's criticism of Western education." This is cited by two sources, and the critics who think this are Akande and the one in The Nation so it's just these two not "Akande and other critics".
 * Fixed
 * Source 61: The source not only does verify the nominations, but it doesn't even have the category for Best Movie Editor.
 * Added cite.
 * Source 63: It also does not list the nominees.
 * Added cite to the AMAA's official Facebook page, which I think is acceptable under WP:SOCIALMEDIA since it's an official post from the organization and there's no reason to doubt its accuracy.
 * Unproblematic spot-checks on citations 2, 5, 23, 24, 41, 43, 44, 48, 57, 62. FrB.TG (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed everything. Thanks for the review and spot check! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping @FrB.TG. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing these. Out of the 15 sources I reviewed for paraphrasing and source-text integrity, five had some problems. To ensure everything is in the clear, I'd need to do more spot-checks. To streamline the process and prevent additional rechecks, I suggest you go through the sources again and then ping me for a recheck. It'll make things smoother for both of us. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FrB.TG: Recheck completed. Thanks again for your thorough work. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Further spot-checks
 * Source 3: OK
 * Source 14: OK
 * Source 15: it only says songs by Victor Olaiya were used but not which ones, and "Sunny Sunny Day isn't mentioned anywhere.
 * Added a cite to the film's credits, which I had thought unnecessary given the presumption in MOS:FILM that things in the film don't need citations.
 * Source 21: OK
 * Source 35: OK
 * Source 36: OK
 * Source 43: OK
 * Redundancy: "...including the sexual abuse of children by religious authority figures, religious and ethnic conflict, politics and human rights in Colonial Nigeria, and Nigeria's unification and independence.[3][43]" and "In NewswireNGR, Augustine Ogwo stated that the film addressed themes of rape and sexual abuse by moral leaders, such as religious figures.[43]"
 * Removed the second one.
 * Source 51: OK
 * Source 52: "Critics applauded the cinematography, production design and costuming, writing, and acting" - this is the opinion of a single critic, not a general consensus)
 * There were originally more cites at the end of that sentence, so I've changed it to reflect that it's the opinion of that critic.
 * Source 58: the category is called Best Video Editor not Best Movie Editor FrB.TG (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed.

Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This concludes my source review and spot-checks. Passing both. FrB.TG (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)