Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Job (2013 film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 [1].

On the Job (2013 film) edit

Nominator(s): Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about On the Job, a Philippine crime thriller movie with a couple of chases, gunshots here and there, a serving of sex, and a simple yet intriguing premise: two prison inmates find renewed value and sense of purpose as assassins hired by powerful political forces—until one botched assignment turns their world upside down. Fun stuff! Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

ALT text seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aoba47 edit

Resolved
  • For the sentence (Michael de Mesa, Leo Martinez, Vivian Velez, Angel Aquino, Shaina Magdayao, and Rayver Cruz feature in supporting roles.), I would recommend "play" instead of "feature" as saying someone is featured in a supporting role or minor role seems a little contradictory.
  •  Done
  • I would suggest linking the ₱ to the article on the related currency to make it more obvious to an uninformed reader. I was initially confused by what the symbol mean when reading the lead. It needs to only be linked in the first mention in the lead and the body of the article.
  •  Done
  • In the sentence (Acosta relays Mario's composite sketch to the police, which unknowingly stuns Mario's family.), I am confused by what is meant by "unknowingly stuns". I think more context or revisions would be helpful.
  •  Rephrased
  • I am not entirely sure if the "Red EPIC camera" image is entirely necessary as it does not really add that much to the article. I would remove it and move the images of the two actors down in its place as that section discuss their casting.
  • I thought it'd be a fine substitute to just add the image of the camera as an illustration since there's not an article about it in the mainspace. Would you consider not removing it?
  • I will leave that to another reviewer; it is not too much of an issue to hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add the years in which Magnifico and Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros were released, either in parenthesis following the title or somewhere in the sentence. Same goes for Dirty Harry.
  •  Done
  • In the "Music credits" table, some of the parts of "Producer(s)' column are blank and need to be filled in.
  •  Done Those blocks don't have credited producers. I just left a long dash so that it won't appear as if I left it intentionally blank.
  • I would encourage you to add topic sentences to the paragraphs in the "Critical reception" subsection to make its organization/structure clearer.
  • I feel like adding topic sentences constitute original research. Couldn't we just let the reviews speak for themselves?
  • I would move the "Home media" directly after the "Theatrical run and distribution" subsection.
  •  Done
  • I would move the "Critical reception" and "Accolades" subsections to a new section titled "Reception" that would be directly after the "Release" section.
  •  Done
  • Are there any updates on the development of the American remake of the film or the miniseries?
  •  Done No fresh update on either one.
  • For Reference 24, the film's title should not be in all caps.
  •  Done
  • The phrase "full list" should not be in all caps in Reference 46.
  •  Done
  • The link to the official website in the "External links" section redirects to the home page for me.
  •  Done

Wonderful job with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aoba47, I have fixed most of the concerns you raised, but I have questions on a few points there. Slightlymad (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work with this. I support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Passed

This looks huge, but don't be scared. ;) It's not even necessary for you to read this entire thing: it's more here for the sake of completeness than anything else. The sections in green are the sections that require any action on your part—I'll remove that formatting once you've addressed the issue. I was gonna wait until the weekend to put this up, but it's so big that it'd probably be much easier to put this up in phases (this is phase 1 of – probably – 2; more likely 3). Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1

  • Ref #1: download-able production company dossier being used to source film length, US release date and additional cast actors. Since I'm not seeing this used as a source for anything on the article that isn't also available at the film's listing at IMDb, I suggest replacing this with the latter, since the latter is an industry-validated high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #2: Philippine Entertainment Portal—a subsidiary of multi-billion dollar independent Filipino broadcaster GMA Network, which has a dedicated editorial staff. High-quality reliable source being used to source budget, uncredited consultants developing the story, reception at Caméra d'Or and Philippine distribution, all of which are attributable to this reference.
  • Ref #3: Box Office Mojo, a high-quality reliable source, in terms of collecting officially-released film industry financial data, being used to accurately source box office figures. No problems to be found here.
  • Ref #4: ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, clearly a high-quality reliable source, being used to source director Eric Matti's acquisition of the film's concept, as well as Michael de Mesa's casting and the film's positive critical reception, all of which have been adequately paraphrased and accurate to the source.
  • Ref #5: I initially wasn't too sure about the quality of the actual website here, but the website has obviously developed quite a reputation as it has bagged interviews with some pretty damn high-profile people. This source is an interview with the film's director, which has been used to elaborate on aspects of the film's production and development, so I see no problem here. Everything sourced from this article is attributable to it, and has been adequately paraphrased.
  • Ref #6: Article from Philippine edition of Esquire, clearly a notable, global publication with a dedicated editorial staff, being used to source information regarding the trailer's release, its reaction and eventual development into the full feature film, problems gathering investment in the Philippines – partly due to the film's violence – and other aspects of the film's creation. Since it's a publication, also consider adding it's ISSN to the reference, which is 2243-8459, according to Scribd.
  • This ISSN is for the February 2016 issue, not the August 2013.
  • An International Standard Serial Number is used to identify any serial publication, and remains the same on all issues. I'll add it to the article myself, just so I can tuck all this under a collapsible template. Feel free to respond if you think there's still an issue here.
  • Ref #7: Philippine Daily Inquirer, listed as a newspaper of record from the Philippines, obvious high-quality source. Used to describe the film's distinction from the lead production company's usual romantic comedy projects. Everything on the article attibuted to this source is accurate, and adequately paraphrased, with the exception of a direct quotation.
  • Ref #8: Same publication as in ref #4, being used to describe Joey Marquez' casting in the film. No problems here.
  • Ref #9: This was the reference I was most concerned about, mainly because of the Squarespace link in the URL. It turns out Squarespace is a hosting service which insists on putting its name in every one of their website URLs. It is not UGC as I initially suspected, but rather the website of Rogue Magazine, a long-established and popular Filipino magazine—pretty much the Filipino Rolling Stone, with a dedicated editorial staff focusing on films, music, art, politics, et cetera. This reference is an editorial which originally featured in the magazine's June 2013 issue, and primarily consists of an interview with the film's director where he discusses the film's principle photography and the mechanics of production (ie, type of cameras used). I'm convinced there is no issue with quality or reliability here.
  • Ref #10: Same publication as in ref #2, being used as a reference to the film's shooting, film's classification by the Cinema Evaluation Board, as well as the publication's own review. All good.
  • Ref #11: GMA News and Public Affairs—major independent Philipino broadcaster. Used to cite the film's cinematography as well as the broadcaster's own review. No problems here.
  • Ref #12: The Philippine Star—broadsheet with multiple notable editors. Used to identify the film's musical director and editors, also discusses the soundtrack's inspirations. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #13: same publication as above reference. This is an interview with the film's musical director.
  • Ref #14: Soundtrack.Net: another website which initially seemed a bit iffy, but it's been listed as one of the best music websites by Time Magazine, and is also used on other featured film articles, see Alien vs. Predator (film) and Boys Don't Cry (film)—and those are just the A's and B's. I went up to the F's at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media, and seen 4 more.
  • Soundtrack.net is actually recognized by WP:FILM/R as a RS for all things soundtrack.
  • Ref #15: same publication as in ref #7. Used as source for the film's premiere at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. No problems here.
  • Ref #16: Cannes Film Festival website. Only used on the article as a 2nd reference for the statement about the film's premiere at the event. Otherwise, it's a primary source that adds nothing to the article that isn't third-party sourced by the previous reference. Can be removed with no loss to accuracy or article sourcing.
  •  Done
  • Ref #16: Rappler. I'm not entirely convinced of this reference's quality. In any case, it doesn't support the article's statement that the film received a 2-minute standing ovation at Cannes. It confirms the standing ovation part, but not the 2-minute part. I did find this from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (as in refs #7 and #14) and it does explicitly say that the film premiere ended with "a two-minute standing ovation." Consider using this instead.
  •  Done Can you archive this one for me?
  • Archived it for you.
  • Ref #17: Same publication as in refs #7 and #14. Used to support the film's release in North America and France. No issues here.
  • Ref #18: IndieWire, Notable and trust-worthy source being used to source information regarding the film's release on BluRay and DVD. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #19: Deadline.com—an industry trade publication being used to identify Well Go USA's CEO and XYZ Films founders. I see no problems here.

I'll pause here. It'll probably be Saturday before I can get part 2 up. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might wanna use the Template:Collapse just like the ones used atop your comments so that this page won't appear too unwieldy to navigate. Slightlymad (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

  •  Done Needs archiving, too. :)

I know there's only a few references left, but I'll pause here and start again tomorrow, hopefully. I've been going through every reference and trying to determine its quality and if it's a reliable source, and with a couple of exceptions, it been mostly fine on this aspect. I've also been checking that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and the article has been perfect so far in this regard. I still have to check each source for close paraphrasing, so I'll do that after I finish the last few references. Be back soon. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitch Film, now known as Screen Anarchy, is definitely a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know, for future film source reviews. Thankfully, the Twitch Film source was used to reference a fairly minor point on the article, so it could easily be replaced by the Variety article (which I'll archive after posting this). And, Slightlymad, I've not been sitting on my ass doin' nothing tonight: I spent this evening going through each individual reference manually checking for close paraphrasing. I couldn't find any, but I'll post a more detailed response on this tomorrow night, when I hope to have this source review finished.
And, just so you know, I hope you don't think I've been this detailed and anal about this article's source review because I believed this article required me to be this detailed and anal—it's a perfect fine article, and almost perfectly sourced up until now (bar the couple of issues I raised above, which you've adequately dealt with). It's just that another user complained about the lack of detail in one of my earlier source reviews, and it was one of the main reasons that article wasn't promoted. So I'm following that user's instructions to a tee, and posting a level of detail which even she has never posted. And, if she happens to question any single reference on this source review, I'll be able to explain and expand on why I believe they are all "high-quality" reliable sources. ;) Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3:

  • Ref #46: Film Business Asia—notable source, with this article written by the deputy director of the New York Asian Film Festival.
  • Ref #47: Variety—obvious high-quality reliable source when it comes to film, theater, etc.
  • Ref #48: Deadline—same ref as in #19; a notable industry trade publication
  • Ref #49: The Philippine Star—same as in ref #12.
  • Ref #50: The Manila Times—broadsheet founded in 1898; see no reason why this shouldn't be considered a high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #51: Rappler—same source as used in references 39 and 45, although the writer of this article hasn't been identified. The website seems to have been provided with the exclusive for this story, so I think that speaks to the site's quality.
  • Ref #52: Manila Bulletin—broadsheet founded in 1900; see no reason why this shouldn't be considered a high-quality reliable source.

And with that, this nearly 12-hour source review is complete. I'm satisfied every source is of high enough quality and reliable to meet the featured article criteria. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Freikorp edit

Having passed the article at GAN and after reading this again now I believe it meets all requirements for FAC. I've found a few optional nitpicks which I will mention below.

  • "Matti conceived of On the Job" - would this be better without the "of"? Up to you.
  • That is actually correct: [2]
  • "as well as a miniseries sequel directed by Matti in June 2016" - on second thoughts, the wording makes it sound like the miniseries has already been directed by Matti, perhaps reword to "in June 2016 a miniseries sequel was confirmed, with Matti given the role of directing", or something similar.
  •  Done Leaving this alone since I was able to retrieve an update that Matti has indeed directed the movie
  • Should 'National Bureau of Investigation' be abbreviated?
  •  Done But it is...
  • I meant to say un-abbreviated :). Most people won't know what the 'NBI' is without clicking on the link otherwise. Freikorp (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Good call.
  • 'cinematography, "whiplash editing".' - are you missing an "and" between these two subjects?
  •  Done
  • I could be wrong, but I think 'Critic's Pick' should be in quotes.
  •  Done
  • It's been over a year since the miniseries was annouced. Are you certain there's no update on its status?
  •  Done Added filming and casting dates.

That's all from me. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Panagiotis Zois edit

  • Considering that Erik Matti both directed and wrote the film I would change it to "thriller film written and directed by" in the lead section.
  •  Done
  • I suggest that you create a "Cast" section. Once you do that I would also suggest that your remove the actors names from the "Plot" section though if you feel it's better to leave their names in I don't have a problem.
  • I feel like providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed. It also circumvents the fact that bulleted cast lists are often entirely unsourced, whereas cast-in-plot mentions demonstrate that we're using the primary source of the article for it. Besides, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics and as a rule we do not include entire cast lists in film articles. Many readers—myself included—find it useful to have the cast names in the plot so we don't have scroll down to another part of the article to see who is playing who! Featured Articles such as Eraserhead and Manhunter observe this.
  • When you say "Brown encouraged him to write it while he looked for potential investors to finance the project", do you mean that Brown looked for potential investors or that Brown encouraged Matti to write the script while simultaneously looking for investors?
  • The latter.
  • I think it would look better if you placed the images of Pascual, Anderson and the EPIC camera all in the same box. To show you what I'm talking about, see the "Voice cast" section images of Disney's Frozen.
  • Doesn't look good, to be honest. I mean it's weird that a photo of a camera is juxtaposed with photos of humans.

I also made a few minor changes for better grammar. Hope you don't mind. Besides those minor nitpicks, the article is pretty well-written and informative on the film. Just out of curiousity, are the FAMAS Awards like the Filipino version of the Oscars? PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, of course I don't mind. It's a collaborative project after all, so your help is certainly encouraged. About your query, I'm not really sure if FAMAS is a Filipino rendition of the Oscars. SLIGHTLYmad 16:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Any more concerns that bother you? SLIGHTLYmad 09:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be thorough I'll take one more look through the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more things:

  • "alongside Matti's film production company" in the lead section.
  • In "Music credits" remove the "Source" at the bottom. I would suggest adding the citation as a reference to the table-list.
  • Nice. OK, the article doesn't seem to have anything else that requires attention. Well written and informative in the major areas. It's a pass. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I believe the article has received substantial amount of comments. Can I get a status report on the nomination? SLIGHTLYmad 13:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I don't think we're quite there yet, and I'd like the prose to have another going over. I spotted a few things in the lead, so another pair of eyes would be a big help. For example, there is "who are temporarily freed from incarceration in a corrupt justice system to carry out political executions" (it would make more sense to swap this around to "who are temporarily freed from incarceration to carry out political executions in a corrupt justice system"), "Matti conceived of On the Job from a Viva Films crew member..."(how do you conceive from a crew member), "In 2010, Star Cinema initially declined to produce the film due to its violence and themes" (They refused to make it because of its themes? What themes? We need to be specific), "they reappraised the script and agreed to co-produce alongside Matti's production company, Reality Entertainment" (I think we are missing something, like "it", after co-produce and we should avoid "produce ... production" in the same sentence), "took place in various parts of Manila" (redundancy: "took place in various parts of Manila") and "where it received much praise and a standing ovation" (we don't need "much"). These are fairly minor, and might be the only issues in the whole article, but I'd still like another check. These are examples that I found from a quick check. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 I believe these concerns you raised have been sorted out. Please take a look. SLIGHTLYmad 06:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments tentative support from Cas Liber edit

I have been asked to copyedit this - some questions below:

  • temporarily freed from incarceration - why not just, "temporarily released from jail"?
Casliber, I've no problem amending this. Thank you for your copyedits, too. :)

On starting I did feel this needed some editing to improve flow and remove redundancies. I think I got most of them and it seems to read okay now. I find if there is a lot to fix I easily miss more stuff. Not sure, will have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose the only sentence I still feel uneasy about is "In the Philippines, corrupt politicians and police are causing abundant crime and poverty." as it is the very first sentence in the body of text and it is clunky. ...maybe something like "In a Philippines rife with corruption, ....(segue into first sentence)" or something.
Okay, nothing else prose-wise is jumping out at me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: an editor was able to look at the prose and sort glaring redundancies out as well as improve textual flow. Will this be enough? SLIGHTLYmad 04:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Casliber has only given a tentative support, I think we still need a few more eyes on it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments by TJW edit

  • Are... they released from prison, kill folks, and then just decide to go back afterward? This seems less than clear.
  • No, they usually spend the night for a temporary parole; the following day, they are transported by a Mitsubishi Pajero and reincarcerated.
  • Done
  • his father was not corrupt but in fact Comma.
  • Done
  • he realizes that he has no one to leave prison for Just seems like an odd construction. Maybe, "no reason to leave prison".
  • Done
  • he can remain in prison Maybe "remain incarcerated"? It's more wordy but it avoid repetition.
  • Done
  • mourned by many, including Nicky, and Acosta is discharged This... is really ambiguous comma usage, and you have to read past "Acosta" to really "get" that "Acosta" is part of the "discharged" and not part of the "mourning".
  • Done
  • gained the idea This... is this a common usage in a variety non-US English? We would say "got the idea" and even that is probably too colloquial for WP.
  • potential investors to finance the project - Seems simpler to just say "investors for financing"
  • Done
  • large a risk for overseas Overseas what? Markets? Audiences?
  • Clarified
  • largest film outfit "Outfit" seems colloquial. What specifically and literally are they that "outfit" is filling in for?
  • Changed
  • as its content was too violent - "Content" seems redundant. I don't believe there is another way it could be violent other than in its content.
  • Done
  • Matti had offered Is the perfect here supposed to imply that at the time it was offered to Star that it had already been offered to these other two? Or is this just another step in the process? If so it should just be in past tense, because there is no particular references point in time that's necessary to "point from".
  • Done
  • co-founder of Reality Entertainment, claimed that WP:CLAIM? Are we intentionally casting doubt on these "claims"?
  • Done
  • a Bushido Blade samurai Don't use WLs in direct quotes.
  • Done
  • Can probably WL to Extra (acting), since it's an industry term, but also has a more common meaning, and non-native speakers might not intuitively "get it".
  • Done
  • This is a Manila movie... This is nearly a 50 word quote, and could probably be a block quote.
  • Done
  • Filming was strenuous across over 70 locations If this is a correct usage of "strenuous" then it's not one I've ever heard. This are or are not subjectively "strenuous", they're not "strenuous over". Seems like you might be going for "stretched".
  • Done
  • Erwin Romulo,[12] the editor-in-chief Conjunction?
  • Found a better alternative
  • This is not absolutely necessary, but as someone who knows exactly zero about cinema in the Philippines, and for the nominator, as an editor who apparently does, I can't help but think there might be some see also's that could help bridge that gap.
  • Done
  • Done
  • There seems to be pretty liberal use of semi-colons, which tends to push articles past the "bright and inquisitive teenager" level that is usually my own personal standard for articles. Might not hurt to look over them and decide whether we're using them because they help add clarity by linking the sentences conceptually, or whether we're just using them because we can. TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Timothyjosephwood, I think I have addressed these outstanding concerns. Please take a look, thanks. SLIGHTLYmad 05:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing that jumps out at me is the USD currency conversion. It doesn't seem to be in the source, and if we're calling CALC on this one, we probably need more information (maybe in a footnote), like whether this is a conversion based on 2013 or 2017 dollars, and what the relative value of the two currencies was, and where that information came from. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Addressed. Please take a look. SLIGHTLYmad 14:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it a bit, since in standard formatting, 1,107 million is... 1.1 billion, which would be an impressive earning indeed. Just lemme give it one last look see. The coffeemaker is almost done. TJWtalk 15:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So, one last read through and I did a lot of general tweaks and fixes. Nothing major. Here's what's left:
  • some of his money home - I don't understand the significance of this. Is he paying remittances to his family? Is he hoarding cash in a mattress somewhere?
  • The former: the character sends the money to pay the bills and his mother's dialysis.
  • killing anyone else involved - First time I read this I thought I understood it, but now I'm not so sure. Is this anyone else involved in the gun-for-hire business, or anyone else in involved in the Senate campaign?
  • The former.
  • political presentation - Does this mean a campaign rally? Because "presentation" makes it seem like a conference room with a power point.
  • I will on err on the side of "presentation". However, here's a subtitled brief YouTube clip of the movie to shed light on this.
  • for his part - His part in...?
  • Added
  • he visits Lulette, who is with her lover, Boy - I just really don't know what this means. Is the person's name Lulette or Boy?
  • The name's Boy, a proper noun, hence the capital letter B. :)
  • Manrique and Pacheco's security detail - He he attacking Manrique and the security detail that belongs to Pacheco? Or is he attacking them both, and the security detail that belongs to both Manrique and Pacheco?
  • Added apostrophe on Manrique since it's both theirs.
  • $350,000 (₱12 million) - This needs a similar explanation as before.
  • It's in the source. Is this necessary? SLIGHTLYmad 06:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC) TJWtalk 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:, done. SLIGHTLYmad 06:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry. I didn't see that it was in the source. My bad. The Boy thing is probably more to do with having an exceptionally common English word as a name. I removed the youtube link from your comments, since it's not totally clear that it's online with proper evidence of permission, but having watched it, I tweaked it a bit to "campaign meeting", which probably more intuitively conveys the scene.
Overall, I feel like I've been pretty nit picky, and everything seems pretty well resolved. I'm fine to support. TJWtalk 10:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/On_the_Job_(2013_film)/archive1&oldid=1136096274"