Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Das Boot (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 not promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Das Boot (film) edit

Self-Nomination: For me, this was one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. It is a culturally significant film. I feel that the page is of appropriate length, the plot does not spew out all unnecessary facts, there are very good images, and it is very well linked.- Just Phil 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is undoubtedly deserving, and the article is informative if somewhat overladen with jargon, but there are too many fair-use images for my liking. I think this should be given a peer review first. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, primarily due to a leghthly plot and lackluster referencing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article needs way better, inline, referencing. And are there really only 4 suitable sources that can be used for this article? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The short Reception section is unsourced, saying one of the most important things about the whole movie, and such a short Reception section compared to the criticism doesn't give the impression this was a successful movie, even though it says it was (the criticism should be inside the Reception section). The article needs to be restructured—so many sections about trivial things (the accent..?) gives it a choppy read: those things should be integrated into Production. The Cast table is rather unwieldy, try a bland list like that of Casablanca. Two third party references isn't going to cut it. This is the kind of cleanup you need at Peer Review to pass at GA, so I'd highly recommend going there first. ALTON .ıl 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for multiple reasons, listed below:

Plot section is too lengthy, with unnecessary subsections and insufficient fair use rationale for all the non-free images used. Images used in the Plot section or elsewhere need to meet #8 at WP:NFCC to avoid being considered decorative, as it is here.
The Reception section is pretty much nonexistent. There are no independent reviews stating why this film was so good, and such a section is of complete importance for such a prominent film.
The Criticism section is hardly cited and not written in a very encyclopedic tone. This section has potential with its content, but a lot of work needs to be done to make it the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
"German regional accents" should be cited and merged as part of Production since the director chose specific nationalities for his film.
Music, if it really was a prominent part of the film, should be part of the Production section.
Versions also needs citations and copy-editing. It should be in a Release section as to cover the topic better. Dubbings and subtitles should go to a Release section as well, with citation.
Special effects / Sets and models should be part of a Production section, and "Special effects" is very misleading, from what I can see in the content -- this has more to do with production design.
Special camera needs to go under Production, and content in both sections also need citations.
The Cast section probably broaches indiscriminate territory, as most of the cast members are not notable for listing in an encyclopedic article. Generally, notable roles are those that have been commented upon independently, and this will usually be focused on the leading roles. Also, Das Boot as a career boost should be cited and combined with the appropriate Cast entries. There's no verifiable backing that Das Boot boosted these men's careers.
This article fails to provide adequate referencing overall.
This article has multiple non-free images which do not provide sufficient fair use rationale -- there are only brief descriptions and licensing tags for each image.
Copy-editing is another concern, but the primary issue is that the content needs to be verifiable.

A much better job can be done. I would suggest reviewing WikiProject Films' recent Featured Articles to serve as guides. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is probably the best submarine movie ever made, I've seen the English and German versions, but the article, just to start, needs better references.Rlevse 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.