Wikipedia:Featured article review/Triumph of the Will/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * ''author retired. WikiProjects notified

Article about the famous Nazi propaganda film. This article fails 1c because it has unsourced sections, and it fails the need for high-quality sources. As it was one of the most famous propaganda films of all time, it should use academic references, but most of the citations are to websites. Many of the citation websites are dead, and some of the sources are questionable, eg 1971films.com redirects to a broken youtube, Butcher is a geocities website, historyplace and so on  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whew, this is an old Featured Article! Looks like it was promoted around December 2005.  I agree with YellowMonkey's review.  The "References" section mentions some useful references, but readers don't know which parts of the article body the references are tied to, if at all.  The footnotes that are tied to the article body could be a lot better; since this is an old and significant film, there should be greater focus on print resources.  This can't be done overnight, though brave souls are welcome to try.  This is an excellent page of resources to use as references.  We should also consider the need to draw upon German-language resources since German academics have surely commented on this film of their country's origin. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, quality of research, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist as per 1c concerns noted above. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per Eubulides. Article uses too many online resources where I feel that the meat of the article should be dependent on print resources, which tend to be more academic and comprehensive. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per 1c Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per 1c deficiencies. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per self  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, per . Cirt (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.