Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/October 1 (film)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2023 [1].

October 1 (film)[edit]

Nominator: voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Daniel Case and a helpful peer review from TechnoSquirrel69, I feel that this is ready for FAC. I look forward to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: 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)[reply]

yes. You need a successful / passed FAC to be exempt from that requirement. (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Okay to list this in the image/source check requests? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is this good to go? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

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)[reply]

It's on the page for the image that this is cropped from. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC) (belatedly signed)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks. I do think it would be worth repeating. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's not a specific template AFAIK, but {{VRT info}} would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done using the {{VRT info}} template. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk[edit]

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

...older audiences: "For the older generation, especially those who were part of independence, they will be able to see themselves in this film. For the younger generation it's a platform for many of them who don't know the story of Nigeria". - period can go inside quotes because of semicolon before

Done

Wl Toyota and Guinness

Done

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

Done

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

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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?
- Voorts, I should've clarified, sorry- the quotes can be cut entirely and just replaced with statements about the movie's themes. For example, Filmmaker Onyeka Nwelue described the film as "sharpen[ing] the veracity of a society torn apart by its tribalism".[18] Wilfred Okiche of YNaija linked the film's political and psychological themes, noting that the film was both a character study of psychological abuse and a "a metaphor for the big lumbering mess that Nigeria has become, tracing the origin of the pathology to the white man’s selfish logic of forcing a diverse group of people into a union that has proved mostly unproductive" 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

In September, Golden Effects unveiled a set of character posters - 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.

@MyCatIsAChonk: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Tim O'Doherty[edit]

Claiming a ticket. Review coming tomorrow at the latest. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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'Doherty (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed your concerns. Thanks for the support! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

"...who was eventually hired to write the screenplay, originally titled Dust." 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

"...and had a particular 1960s 'look' " might be better quoted as " 'a look that is particular to that period' " or " 'a look that is particular to [the 1960s]' ".

Done

Perhaps change "Afolayan cast Sagoe" to "Afolayan cast Deola Sagoe" 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

"...consolidating several tribal groups in one nation. In The Nation..." might be better as "...consolidating several tribal groups in one country. In The Nation...".

Done

"...it is your country now'"." should use {{'"}}.

Done

"In March, Golden Effects said..." 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7], [8] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: You should change the {{xt}} and {{!xt}} templates to {{green}} and {{red}} per the guidelines at FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  @Gerald Waldo Luis: Gotcha, thanks for checking that! Voorts, feel free to disregard this point. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice work, Voorts; this one's a well-earned support from me! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 15:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL[edit]

Hey there! This overall seems pretty solid, but I have plenty of comments. Hopefully they are useful! I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. Gerald WL 09:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Replied to everything. I have a couple of questions below. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: 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)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: 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: see this diff. I knew parts of the article looked familiar. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see. Then this is an easy support. Good work! Gerald WL 03:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gerald WL 05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* The alt text is kind of overly lengthy, but they should be as brief as possible, enough so that blind readers can understand the gist of it. I'd remove the first sentence as it repeats the caption. I'd change it to "The main character in the foreground of the left side, with minor characters in smaller proportion to his side, and an old church under dark skies at the right."

Done

Similar to the second image, I'd remove the "Morris" mention, but instead describe the car's shape, like round, boxed, etc.

Done

I recommend using Ghostarchive for ref 14 since IA won't save the video

Done

YouTube should be in publisher, to not be italicized

Changed cites with youtube to Cite AV media and made it "via" YouTube with the channel name as publisher since they're press outlets.

Remove the url in ref 21, 22, since it's already served in the DOI parameter

I didn't include URLs for those. Something is either broken with the cite journal template or there's been an update where DOI automatically files the URL. Here's the current source for one of those cites: {{Cite journal |last=Ezepue |first=Ezinne Michaelia |last2=Nwafor |first2=Chidera G. |date=July-September 2023 |title=October 1: Metaphorizing Nigeria’s Collective Trauma of Colonization |journal=[[SAGE Open]] |doi=10.1177/21582440231197271 |doi-access=free}}

Ah I see! Yeah, it's probably Cite journal doing its job. Gerald WL 05:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 41 is easily replacable by ref 62

Good catch.

For ref 49 you can remove the doi since it redirects to MUSE itself

Done

Ref 61-63, change website to publisher

Done

The official website is now used by some Wordpress guy, should probably change to an archive

Done

I really think you can expand on the release sentence: when and where it premiered, and the box office bomb

Done

The infobox should also include the premiere date; see WP:FILMRELEASE

Done

Generally I would avoid meta language like "Following an opening sequence", "the film begins", or "the film shifts", in favor of a more natural story, unless doing so would not do the article service. I'll try detail it in the points below.

Done

"Following an opening sequence depicting a young woman being raped by an unknown man"-- the sentence after this describes a rape investigation, which would be enough for readers to understand that the film concerns such cases, so this can be dropped.

Done

"In a flashback, Waziri narrates the story of his investigation in a voiceover."-- Another meta language. I think that combining "Upon his arrival in Akote" with the paragraph would make it more natural and direct: this guy is tasked to investigate, so he goes to the village.

Done

The third paragraph can also be combined since they concern the same day

Done

"After leaving a celebration of the investigation's closure, Waziri hears whistling and is assaulted by the killer; however, he is too drunk to identify him. Afonja sees Waziri lying on the road and takes him home. During his recovery, Waziri remembers the face of the killer." --> "After leaving a celebration of the investigation's closure, Waziri hears whistling and is assaulted by the killer. Although he is too drunk to identify him, he would slowly remember the face as he recovers."

Done

Remove the cast paranthesis. Also why is it Reverend in the Cast and not Father?

Should have been Reverend in the plot summary.

"who reveals that Father Dowling"-- the "Father" here can prob be dropped

Done

"The film then shifts back to Waziri presenting his account of the investigation to a group of British officers. They instruct Waziri to withhold the Aderopo's identity; he reluctantly agrees to do so for the sake of a peaceful independence." --> "Waziri later presents his account of the investigation to a group of British officers, who instruct Waziri to withhold the Aderopo's identity; he reluctantly agrees to do so for the sake of a peaceful independence." Can also merge with above paragraph.

Done

"the screenplay. The screenplay that he produced was originally titled Dust" -- repetition of "the screenplay" --> "the screenplay, originally titled Dust"

Done

"he wanted to produce a "national film with a universal appeal". In an interview, Afolayan said he wanted the film to appeal to younger and older audiences" --> "he wanted to produce a "national film with a universal appeal", with a focus on younger and older audiences"

Edited

I think it would be relevant to have a naira conversion of the budget, fixed in the time of production (2013)

Done

"particular to the 1960s, which is the film's time setting."

Changed to something else

"as Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti"-- should probably detail a bit about this person, shortdesc-style.

Done

"October 1 featured a soundtrack"-- or score?

Done

Should prob cite ref 9 in the caption since it isn't explcitly stated in prose

Done

"Nigeria's unification and independence" linked here but not in lead

Done

"Critics noted that October 1 ... Critics generally noted that October 1" repetition --> "Critics noted that October 1 ... Many observed that the film"

Done

Link tribalism

Done

"those criticisms and the Boko Haram insurgency's criticism" --> "those and the Boko Haram insurgency's criticisms"

Done

Don't think NewswireNGR should be italicized-- it's a newsroom

Done. Also changed to Agency instead of Website parameter in cite.

"the film's "rhetoric of return", positing that the film relies on the "motif of return"" --> "the film's "rhetoric of return", positing that the film relies on it"-- motif is the same as rhetoric

Changed

"Afolayan described the "take-away" of the"-- take-away can be easily paraphrased to moral or message

Done

Why the "[,]"? I think it's still correct without it, no?

Removed

"2014; the film" --> "2014, where the film"

Done

Link Nollywood

Done

"New York University in New York City"-- isn't it obvious that it's in NYC? I think "the United States" would be a better replacement for NYC

Removed in NYC. I don't think adding in the US is needed.

"The film premiered in the United Kingdom on 3 November 2014 at the 2014 Film Africa Festival in London" -- misleading "premiere", 2014 repetition --> "The film's European premiere was in London on 3 November 2014 at the Film Africa Festival"

Done

Link Netflix

Done

Unlink Nollywood in last paragraph

Done

DStv dup link

Where?

"Africa Magic channel"

Done

I think these two sections can be merged into "Reception"

Done

"status as a "Neo-Nollywood" director" --> "status as a director of the New Nigerian Cinema"

Done

"cinematography, costume, production design and acting"-- why in quotes? This is a relatively generic sentence

Removed quotes

"October 1 was nominated for the most awards at the 2014 Africa International Film Festival"-- I... don't think so, 3 versus 12 with the Africa Magic Viewers.

Removed

See MOS:DTT on accessibility for tables.

Added a caption; any other accessibility issues?

I'll take a look at that and a last skim thru the article tomorrow :) Gerald WL 05:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot-checks – pass[edit]

What makes Wakati Africa a high-quality reliable source?
- Removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A timestamp for source 4 and 14 would be helpful.
- Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed everything. Thanks for the review and spot check! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Forgot to ping @FrB.TG. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Recheck completed. Thanks again for your thorough work. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Fixed.

@FrB.TG: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This concludes my source review and spot-checks. Passing both. FrB.TG (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.