This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Leni Riefenstahl is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have reverted a previous contribution which removed posters of Reiefenstahl's early films, especially Triumph of the Will, which brought her some infamy. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was clearly biased and minimal. I have been editing this article for some time and shocked by the casual vandalism to which it is subjected. The posters add info for readers. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is purely about copyright, something that the editors at WP:NFCR are highly versed in. This is not vandalism, but your constant re-addition against consensus is disruptive editing and grounds for blocking. You've been given the process on how to change this, and yet you refuse to go through the correct channels. TLSuda (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
These images are woefully inappropriate under our rules and were (correctly) removed after a WP:NFCR thread. If you would like to re-litigate that discussion, you are welcome to bring it there again, but the result will be the same. --B (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As of today, on the advice of a friend, I've done my best to improve this level-4 vital article with the purpose of getting it to GA-status. I have gone ahead and nominated it. No doubt the GA-review will take time and consume resources, so please join in with thoughts for improvement and whatever help you can when that time comes. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Under GA rules, this can be re-nominated in the future. However, before anyone does so, they should read the numerous problems found in the GA1 review. Worthy subject matter. But a great deal of work needs to be done on it. — Maile (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I finally got down to it and took care of ALL the problems outlined in the GA-review. It was a minor pain, but it's done as the articles edit history will show you. Because of this I'm going to re-nominate it for GA-status and ask the latest reviewer if he or she would be so kind to look at the article one more time. Stay tuned! Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"This material became Olympia, a hugely successful film which has since been widely noted for its technical and aesthetic achievements.", "Riefenstahl's work on Olympia has been cited as a major influence in modern sports photography", "Olympia was very successful in Germany after it premiered for Hitler's 49th birthday in 1938.". Do we really need to keep saying that it was successful? I think its success should be discussed once, you can easily merge the first two parts.
I don't think much of this section. It reads like a tribute or quote farm. I'd prefer to see constructive prose discussing her techniques and film making using such quotes to support the writing. There definitely needs to be something discussing her techniques.
To be honest, I think the section is pretty neutral; there is a lot of criticism and her admiration for Hitler is frequently mentioned as having hampered her career and/or reputation. I'm not sure what kind of changes you want me to do. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning the neutrality. I just thought that you can better use the quote material within constructive prose rather than just giving quote examples.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jonas Vinther: What the good doctor means to say is that he wants you to explain the opinions of the critics (at least some of them) in your own words rather than just copy-paste quotes of what they say. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 11:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's OK to use some full quotes but they need to be in some sort of context to provide a coherent encyclopedic overview. There should be a section discussing her filmmaking techniques and acclaim, and in such a context you can then use such quotes to back up the prose. See the Acting style section of Rod Steiger for instance. It provides an argument using quotes but isn't just a random collection of quotes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good effort User:Jonas Vinther but feels a little rough around the edges. The prose isn't great, in many places it doesn't quite flow as well as it could. It could really use a decent copyedit I think but I think it will be passable once some changes are made.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jonas. @We hope: or @Nikkimaria:, can either of you do a quick scan for images. I suspect there's some ones in the article which can't really be used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
My 2 cents worth-All seems to be well with the licenses of everything except the infobox photo. I'm not certain it's in the public domain. The photos from the Bundesarchiv were donated to Commons by the archives some time ago and they're in the public domain. The childhood photo is licensed as non free, as is the film poster. We hope (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The questions are about whether or not the licenses the photos have are correct. This looks to be a "family album" type of photo where it was not made public for many years after it was taken. However, I have questions about the infobox photo. It's from the "Iceberg" film of 1933 but it's licensed as being PD because the photographer died more than 70 years ago and we don't seem to have information about that. We hope (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Now I've put on the NFCC hat. ;) I'd say it's not necessary in this article because people are able to understand that she did this film without seeing the poster here. There's an article on the film which has a poster and that article is linked in this article's text. BTW--many, many years ago Time magazine didn't renew some of their earlier copies, so the cover is PD through their failure to do that. I'd suggest switching the infobox photo to the Binder one as I expect at some point this will be on the front page as a new GA if it passes. We hope (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Tim riley and myself are in agreement that there's little stopping this being listed as a GA. It's a good article overall Jonas, but I think it would benefit from a good copyedit from somebody and some improvement of the acclaim section to include directing technique analysis and to read more like an encyclopedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"She was praised for her body of work following her death...." Perhaps better phrasing would be: After her death, she was praised for her body of work... Unless she followed her death with even more work which would indeed be praiseworthy. —T. Collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)