Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triumph of the Will

Self-nomination: Triumph of the Will is one of those rare works that has extremely high name recognition, yet few people have seen it. This article was an attempt to do justice to the film and explain why it is regarded by many as the greatest propaganda film of all time, as well as address the obvious controversy over a film personally commissioned by Adolf Hitler. I took over editing this page in mid-October (My first Wiki edits too!) and believe I've had adequate time for feedback. I put up a peer review some time ago, though the response was unfortunately minimal. I hope you will see fit to support this nomination. If not I would very much appreciate detailed responses so I can keep improving this page. Palm_Dogg 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Pretty good article. (Ibaranoff24 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Support. Lead needs expanding to two paragraphs, Trivia list should be converted into prose or merged into another part of the article. There is a mix of in-line HTML links and in-line footnote citations, the rest of the HTML ones need to be converted to use footnotes. The references section currently only has footnotes inside it, so it should be titled 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' and a separate 'References' section should be made listing books or other general references that were used.Wackymacs 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is now two paragraphs but they aren't very long - the lead should summarize all the context of the article. There are only two References (aside from the footnotes) - this isn't enough for article of this length. Lots of words throughout the article are actually HTML links with masking words such as the Wall Street Journal link in the 'Reception', these should be de-linked and replaced as footnotes. Also, i think the 'Reception' section should be renamed 'Response'. The fair use images also require fair use rationales listing on the image pages why the uploader believes they are covered under a fair use license. Wackymacs 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too crazy about this article but its pretty good and my major concerns have been addressed so I have changed my vote to weak support. — Wackymacs 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It would probably be worth tracking down some of Leni Riefenstahl's own latter-day comments on the film. I know she was interviewed about it in The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. I believe she was asked outright about the issue of whether she was sugar-coating Nazism by leaving out the anti-Semitism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spport - pretty good, although it would be nice if you could address Jmabel's comment above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportTentatively Object I have one point. If it's fixed, this can be counted as support. I'll change my vote. The Lion King image should have an explanation of why it's like this film (it's not obvious to me at all)...ie, just like the Lord of the Rings image has. Other than that, fine article.Rlevse 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)This issue was fixed and QUICKLY! Rlevse[reply]
  • Conditional Support Great article, but I wish there was more about the filming of the film. The major issues are the footnotes need to be put in the same order they appear in the main article. I think there are two or three too many images from films inspired by Triumph of the Will, you don't need this much. If an article was wikilinked within the article it shouldn't be in the See Also section. I'm also not thrilled about linking within the article to sites outside wikipedia, but thats not a major issue. Also does this article really need a spolier tag? Its a documentary, there is nothing to spoil. Otherwise good work. MechBrowman 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just numbered and reordered the footnotes and finished changing the footnotes to the ref_label/note_label template. - The Catfish 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just saw this article on the self nominations page for Wikipedia:Good articles. I thought it was good enough to be listed there and was about to add it to the list when I saw the FAC link. Having seen several comments expressing weak support, or saying it's pretty good, I feel like I should remind those commenting that FAs are supposed to be the very best that Wikipedia has to offer, and not just competent, good articles such as this. I feel this article is good, but not among the best we have to offer, so I would far prefer to see it listed on WP:GA than on WP:FA. Worldtraveller 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]