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

Reviewer: Drown Soda ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm willing to do a review on this, especially given the importance of the subject. It's a semi-large article so I will take some time giving it the one-over before adding notes and suggestions. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 20:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Notes and suggestions

• Lede section

"...was an English film director and producer, referred to as the "Master of Suspense". — by whom? I do think this needs to be clarified, especially since it is not brought up later in the article. Does anyone know the origin of this nickname? Was it critics, peers, friends who coined it?

Thanks for taking on this long article on Hitchcock and I look forward to your comments after you take your review period for more detailed comments. My own dislike for puffery means that I will be removing all of these passages which you have marked or abridging them to remove the puffery. Many previous editors were fans of Hitchcock and it is easy to see why they may have exaggerated some claims. I am either removing them all as you have identified them or rewording them. Regarding "Master of Suspense", this designation appears in at least three cites in this article including the 2006 Moerbeek book, the NYTimes obit notice, and the McDevitt article. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 16:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Early life

General comment: I do think the subsections here need retitling. "Born in Great Britain" reads strangely, and especially because this section is not simply about his birth; sections and subsections should describe the content within them and not resemble a timeline. A simple alternative would be something like "Childhood and education," which is appropriate and descriptive of the information within.

"Around age five, Hitchcock recalled that to punish him for behaving badly, his father sent him to the local police station with a note asking the officer to lock him away for five minutes"—awkwardly phrased. Alternative way of saying this would be: "Around age five, Hitchcock's father punished him for bad behavior by sending him to the local police station, where Hitchcock was forced to request the officer lock him away for five minutes."

Done by another editor with your suggestion. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 16:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

"the few scenes that had been finished at that point have been lost." — needs a citation.

"...and is often considered to be the first British talkie feature film—who is it considered this by? Historians, critics?

"The 39 Steps (1935) is often considered one of the best films from his early period."—again, "often" is dubious, especially as it is not attributed to a specific person or demographic.

Reworded to remove puffery. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 16:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Early Hollywood years: 1931–1945

First two paragraphs of Selznick contract section are sparse on citations (particularly the first paragraph)

" Rebecca (1940) was Hitchcock's first American film, set in a Hollywood version of England's Cornwall—does this mean the narrative was set in Hollywood, or that the film was shot on a set piece in Hollywood that was a recreation of Cornwall?

"Hitchcock formed an independent production company with his friend Sidney Bernstein called Transatlantic Pictures,"—formed it when?

The Selznick material can be shortened though there are currently 7 citations in this section. More on Bernstein is also possible if that is needed. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 17:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• The canonical Hitchcock films: 1954–1960

I do feel the first section ("Early peak years") runs a bit too long. I would suggest a subsection break for the Alfred Hitchcock Presents as it was a separate endeavor from his films, but that does necessitate a separate consecutive subsection for what follows it. In any case, it is far too lengthy not to be broken up.

"At the height of Hitchcock's success in 1956"—this needs a citation of some sort, or clarification. I'm not disputing whether or not this was the peak, but it does need corroboration from a reliable source.

"Vertigo contains a camera technique developed by Irmin Roberts that has been copied many times by filmmakers commonly referred to as a dolly zoom. It was Vertigo premiered in the San Sebastián International Film Festival"—current phrasing makes it read as though the dolly zoom premiered upon first read.

The sections have been adjusted for a chronological break at the end of 1957. It looks more balanced now as to the placement of the section break. Wording in reliable sources on the dolly zoom is strongly associated with Hitchcock as shown here: [1] ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 17:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Aesthetic
  • Psychology of characters

Well-written, but needs citations throughout. I'm sure there are many out there in the various biographies and in the bibliography. I recall reading this kind of scholarly work on Hitchcock in Spoto's biography in a film class in college—I'm not familiar enough with his biographies to know which contain this information, but it's sourced somewhere.

All three of the section here are summaries and synopsis of the books which are associated with each of these sections. DeRosa was the primary source for the Writing section, Raymond Bellour for the Storyboards section, and the Truffaut interviews for the Actors section. The full article for these short summary and synopsis sections is at Themes and plot devices in the films of Alfred Hitchcock, and the material in these three short sections could be presented there since the emphasis for this article should be on the biography materials. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 18:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Style of working
  • Storyboards and production

Again, very nicely-written, but lacking citations.

• • Approach to actors

Same as above.

• References and further reading

The references check out and appear reliable, and the citations here are appropriate.. My main concern here is the length of the Further reading section in comparison to that of the Reference section; it is very large and suggests that more work needs to be done in the Reference department. I do realize Hitchcock is a unique case given the vastness of bibliographic sources on his life, his films, and his career, so he may be a bit of an exception. That said, given the fact that there is a lack of citations in large portions of the article (particularly the latter half), something tells me that this information is at least in-part culled from the "Further reading" section—even if not, I believe the "Further reading" bibliography has more than enough to supply said sources. A great deal of the scholarship on Hitchcock is on his style and aesthetic choices.

Its possible that previous editors may have overdone the further reading section by including many items which do no appear in this biography of Hitchcock. If you would like the number of such references down to some more reasonable number then let me know how many sounds reasonable and the list can be shortened. Regarding the puffery in the article, I have removed all the ones you have marked. For the moment I am temporarily removing the Puffery template at the top of the article. If there is any more puffery then just mark it up again and I will try to promptly address it. There should be no puffery in this article. @ Drown Soda and Keith D: There is no rush on things like this and possibly you could notify me when your full review is ready. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 18:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Overall: I feel this article is close to GA status, but there are some things that need addressed before it gets there. Some of it is mild things such as clarification and prose, though I do think the biggest hurdle is expanding the citations and distributing them where they need to go. Let me know if anyone has other feedback or contentions. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) ✓ Pass reply

• @ Drown Soda: Keith and I have been the editors for this article and it appears to be in a hold pattern for the last ten days. Could you let us know if we can be of assistance? ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ ManKnowsInfinity: hello to both of you—I have done a re-read of the article and it looks like the issues I raised in the review have been addressed. My only suggestion is paring down the "Further reading" section at this point as Wiki articles should as a standard not have such a large section of this sort. I realize some of this may be valuable in the future, so possibly leaving some vital bibliographic material in there and then blanking the rest with the (imbed) function would be appropriate? I'm not knowledgable enough on these books to know which are essential and which are more peripheral, so I'm not sure which should be left to view and which should be viewable only in edit mode. Let me know what you think, and good work. Drown Soda (manually signing due to system format default).

• @ Drown Soda: Thanks for these comments. In order to be more realistic about giving readers a chance to access the further reading list, I have done some pruning in order to include titles generally from within the past 10-15 years. If the new version needs further abridging then let me know. (Some format was added to your comment above to make it more easily visible on the screen here). ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ ManKnowsInfinity: oops, I must have inadvertently blanked the text. In any case, the further reading looks better and I think the resizing does help. I'm comfortable passing this as GA unless anyone else has other comments or contentions. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Drown Soda: Looks like 3 days with no further critiques. Is it closer to passing this? ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ ManKnowsInfinity: I think so—I'll initiate the GA right now. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 20:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply