Talk:Downfall (2004 film)/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Will review as soon as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zwerg Nase: Nominator here. Great! Looking forward to the review. I think I've gathered every notable publication that I could find on the internet for the film's production, box office, and critical response. If you find issues in your review let me know and I'll do my best to fix them. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NowIsntItTime: Will do, sorry this is taking so long... I had to move quite suddenly and it's been taking up a lot of my time as you can imagine. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zwerg Nase: No problem! Take your time. I actually only saw your comment yesterday when I edited the page because I didn't add it to my watchlist. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 14:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comment I'd suggest this nomination be withdrawn as a lot of work is needed before the article covers main aspects (#3a). The Release section contains no release dates and next to no information. There's no Themes section, though sources exist analyzing the film [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Although a secondary item of importance, there's no WP:FILMHIST section either, although sources exist on that too [6] [7] For such a popular, well-known and recent film, I'd have expected more than 61 sources and more book sources; I would think a Casting section would be fairly easy to research and put together. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The release date was actually misplaced; I put it in the box office section instead. Other than that, I agree with you Ribbet32. I can see that I failed to add what you've mentioned before when I was looking for information, and it really would have helped the article to add a themes and historical accuracies section. I will withdraw my nomination and try to work on the issues, hopefully I can submit it again sometime in the future. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NowIsntItTime: Hey! I was going to post my comments today. Would you agree for me to post them anyway for future reference and then let me close the nomination? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zwerg Nase: Sure! Go ahead mate. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

• While the meme can be included in the lead, considering that it takes up quite a part of the article, the last half sentence about the copyright issues I think are too trivial here. Adressing them in the article proper is enough, I think.

  Done

• You use surnames for all people but Traudl Junge. Use the last name instead of first name here as well.

  Done

• First sentence: The word "perplexed" might not be the best here. Maybe "discouraged"?

  Done

• The years given for the books do not seem to be the release years. Also, not all of them give year numbers, just some. There should be consistency here.

  Done

• Second paragraph mentions Hirschbiegel, without having mentioned him in the article yet. So, wikilink and give full name and who he is. Maybe you can even find a source about his hiring?

  Done

• The Bild headline seems out of place here, this should go into the reception section.

  Done

• Overall, I am not sure if this section is necessary at all. You could move "home media" down below Reception and cut the entire release part since it does not give significant information. It would be different if you could give more info on the release, like were the premiere was and when. When was it released in Germany and by whom? When and by whom was it released in the UK and the US?

  Done Added information about the premiere in Toronto, and its first release in manhattan. I couldn't find anything about the UK though, but there's the part about its strapline for channel 4, not sure if that counts in this situation.

• Generally, I feel like the controversy surrounding the movie should be given more space, probably in its own section. There are plenty more sources who discuss the issue, like here or here.

  Done

• Note 1 about Mohnke and Schenck gives context, but no source for the statement. You need to add one here!

  Done

• At the end of the paragraph, you mention that Mohnke denied the accusations, but since the accusations are given in a footnote, this leaves a reader who has not read the footnote wondering what exactly he denies doing. I would recommend moving the footnote into the prose.

  Done

• You might think about maybe shortening this section. While the movie is significant for its meme, it seems undue weight in the article right now. A section about the Hitler controversy should, in my view, be longer than the one about the meme.

  Done and I'll see what I can do when I put the controversy section together. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

As by the suggestion of the nominator, I am closing the nomination for now. I hope that the article will find swift work on the issues raised above. @NowIsntItTime: Feel free to ping me if you re-nominate this, I would not mind looking at this again in the future. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NowIsntItTime: Also, check out some of the Bruno Ganz obituaries, they can give new information for the article as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply