Talk:Alfred Hitchcock

Not scary enough

Alfred Hitchcock's picture was clearly digitally altered, and we need a real picture for accuracy's sake. After all, he was not a jovial man, and considering his lifetime ban on smiles, there's no way he would be smiling as brightly as that. Furthermore, the article doesn't build up the terror and suspense that I've come to associate with Hitchcock, and thus I would recommend a complete rewrite for the sake of plot and character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srysly2 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose could do with some work (eg. "as his wife being a private person she was keen to avoid public attention"; there is overlinking, particularly in the lead, which, along with multiple cites in the lead, makes it a bit distracting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The most obvious problem is that the article needs more citations. There are quite a lot of {{citation needed}} tags, some of which have been there since February 2009. There is at least one direct quote without an inline citation, which is required by WP:WIAGA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is already a large article. I see that sections have been split off in the past, more may need to be split, but summary style needs to be employed. At the moment, there are two sections on important aspects of the subject, that are each only two lines long. I also worry about the broadness of the article given that there are several books in the "further reading" section that haven't been used, and others that have only been used minimally.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm afraid there's too much work to be done to list the article as a GA at this time.

There are also far too many external links, a fact that the nominator apparently agrees with. Some of them may be useable as sources, in which case they should be used. Otherwise, if a website adds nothing that a potential featured article can't provide, it shouldn't be linked to. Check the toolbox links above to see an automated peer review that has some suggestions. The Checklinks tool shows some dead links in the references. The article needs some work, but with an article like this that is already large, has had many editors over the years and has so much source material to draw from, I'd really recommend taking it to peer review before a further GA nomination, and perhaps asking for help at the biography and film wikiprojects.--BelovedFreak 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

1924 is not "pre-war"

The article currently has a subheading "Pre-war British career" that starts out "Hitchcock's last collaboration with Graham Cutts led him to Germany in 1924"... nobody in 1924 Europe would have referred to that time as "pre-war", and especially not in Germany. (also as an aside, Germany is not part of a British career.) WWI had just ended and it was the most devastating war the world had ever seen. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is. WWI was over in 1918; Hitler was already head of the Nazi Party as of 1921. We don't write from the point of view of the times being discussed; we write from a current 21st century point of view. Pick nits much? Yworo (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I "inter" the discussion? The new title should (hopefully) satisfy everyone. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Twist Endings"?

The article says that many of his films feature twist endings, that is bunk. Really only one of his films features a twist ending, Psycho. I thought of changing this to "some", but really there aren't "some" of his films that feature a twist ending. Thoughts? Disagree? Agree? Supertheman ^(talk) 04:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Konstam and Spellbound

The acteur Phyllis Konstam writes about the german part of her family (her uncle Oskar Kohnstamm) - there is a relationship to the film Spellbound- and to the fairy tale Peter and Anneli's Journey to the Moon, which is written in the sanatorium of her uncle:

http://www.thomas-mann-neuforschung.de/#7.31

http://www.thomas-mann-neuforschung.de/#7.85

The model for Dr. Edwards was really a doctor - Peter Georg Konstam (with a portrait photo): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2550774/pdf/bmj00610-0049.pdf

The life of Peter Kohnstamm in the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kohnstamm

--Groth-Pfeifer (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Alfred Hitchcock Commutative Stamp 1998.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alfred Hitchcock Commutative Stamp 1998.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Parody?

What was the name of the alligator that Hanna-Barbera used to parody Hitchcock? I think it mostly appeared in the Snagglepuss episodes; and, no, it WASN'T Wally Gator. CFLeon (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)