User talk:ManKnowsInfinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, ManKnowsInfinity, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NeilN talk to me 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

ManKnowsInfinity, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi ManKnowsInfinity! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

John Chrysostom[edit]

Hi ManKnowsInfinity,

Thanks for the work on this article. I removed one of your edits because the material is covered elsewhere in the article. Please let me know if you want to discuss further, either here or on the article talkpage. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majoreditor; Nice of you to get back on this. Recently in re-reading the Stephens biography on Chrysostom I noticed that his preference was to mention the Chrysostom writingof books in the process of covering Chrysostom's biography. This looked useful and when I checked other Wikipedia articles for the approach used in other good article and especially featured articles, then the preference was to name the works written in a short sentence in the biographical section of the article and then cover its interpretation and meaning in a separate section. After this I then added one short sentence to mention that Adv. Judaism was an early writing from the years of his Diaconate, and left the other interpretation section of the article to cover the details. If you are eventually planning to develop the Chrysostom article toward an FA article then perhaps some version of my small mention of this book possibly in your own words or version would move the article forwards to resemble other Wikipedia FA articles for its eventual upgrade. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Your suggested approach sounds sensible. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

False positive attribution: Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Henry IV, Part 1 into Falstaff. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Template banner for Main Page attribution was placed at start of section. More can be added as needed. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
What's needed is for you to state in your edit summary at the destination that the material was copied from elsewhere, and to specify what the source article was. A sample edit summary is as follows: "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Metropolitan Museum of Art on April 22, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The more attribution the better. At present there is a template banner for Main page attribution when this is done by me along with an edit history summary that material is being reorganized/moved for article enhancement. More attribution is possible as well. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The page split was attributed 3 times as taking place here [1], and here [2], and here [3]. Message added below. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

False positive attribution erroneously applied here[edit]

There have been repeated false positive attributions erroneously placed here several times, most recently for edits at Ingmar Bergman and sibling pages. I have left 3 clear statements that the page split was taking place here [4], and here [5], and here [6], though a false positive message is erroneously stating that I have left no indication of the page split. I have been involved in the editing of several arts-related biography articles such as Alfred Hitchcock (now brought to GA-level), Francis Bacon, Pablo Picasso, and now Ingmar Bergman which require page splits as part of conventional Wikipedia upgrades to articles going through incremental improvements. In all cases the page splits which were done are clearly identified, though false positive bot notification appears to miss this and generate falsely attributed messages for these valid page splits following all requirements set in Wikipedia policy for copying within Wikipedia. The bot or bot-like notifications I have been receiving appear to be caused by bots that do not properly check both sides of a move or page split which always have an "origin article" from which the material is taken and a "destination article" to which the material is placed following recognized Wikipedia policy for splitting articles by copying within Wikipedia. The bot or botlike activity which results in these false positive attributions should be corrected to include checks of both the origin articles for moves and the destination articles for moves before issuing error messages. Currently only one or the other is checked which leads to false positive attributions. In this case, I have marked the Ingmar Bergman article 3 times here [7], and here [8], and here [9], but the notice above states I have provided 0 (zero) notification. The bot or bot-like notifications should be updated by someone with experience in this aspect of Wikipedia operations which is currently leaving erroneous false positive messages as done above. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Aesthetics into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Text was copied into Theory of art. /wiae /tlk 20:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the articles are being refined as to content and correct placement of individual sections. The edit history for my edits should plainly identify this and your added emphasis amplifies this process. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Alien: Covenant plot section[edit]

Just because The Guardian has written a review that includes an explanation of a portion of the plot doesn't mean we should automatically include it. The film has not been released worldwide yet and it's in my understanding we should avoid disseminating spoilers until it's officially released. Please refrain from making similar edits in the future. Renamerguy (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear on this at link WP:Spoiler. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase you added back multiple times, maybe you should stop reverting it to the version that says "misinform". I am aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but changing the word as to the neutral verb like "tells", "says" does not contradict the review, nor does it censor the Wikipedia in any way. We are not hiding the spoilers. We are spoiling the plot anyway, as it becomes clear in the subsequent section that David is caught lying, so there's no need to do it twice. A good plot section not only summarizes the story. A well written one can retain the key details while letting the story unfolds follwing the movie's narrative tone. If we can do both while using the neutral word, why don't we? The movie narrates the scene that way. And there's WP:Neutral to follow. Also, kindly consider WP:CYCLE. Your edit has been reverted back to neutral form of verb many times, by a lot of people, and it's probably the time to consider if there's something wrong with it. It will not do for anyone to retain only the version you added while achieving no specific purpose in any guidelines. Multiple reverts is making this comfortable to work with. Please reconsider before your multiple reverts. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you find the need to include the mentioned review in the article, there should be some other sections you can add the criticism or the explanation on. That way, we get to keep the useful details and keep the plot neutral. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The reviews in the Critical reviews section of the article by Edelstein and Wilkinson are both in agreement as to the depiction of David as a Frankenstein monster in the film, Wilkinson even compares him to "Satan" in her review. The only hint the film gives of this level of malevolent behavior in David early in the film is his choice of King David, the King of Israel, as a role model for himself and his misrepresentation of the destruction of the Engineers. That seems notable as an indication of the extremity of David's malevolence as stated by WP:Reliable sources which appears later in the film and as summarized by Edelstein and Wilkinson. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation in using the neutral word, but the plot still keeps bloating to beyond 700 word count, which contradicts the guideline. While I agree that well sourced materials might have a place on Wikipedia, I really suggest you put it where there's no length restriction. You can barely attribute those reviews and the reference of Satan and King David to David's storytelling without long explanation and without tagging the reference. Connecting them is quite a big stretch without explanation and is too big to belong in the plot section. But if we try to reduce the words to minimal, the connection will be too vague to attribute to the source, so I suggest reallocating them altogether.
Philosophical references is mentioned in a lot of movies, for instance, a featured article Prometheus (2012 film) has a section for it, "Theme", which includes philosophical references and comparisons. While the material for that section is currently limited, I believe a diligent contributor such as you can add more in the future. In the mean time, kindly understand that it has to remain under 700 words. Also, I would like to point out that your new wording, "In order to get the crew to disclose their mission of transporting a large group of colonists" is leaning towards speculation. David cannot know their mission before they reveal it to him, so he cannot "get the crew to disclose their mission of transporting a large group of colonists". At least your wording seems to be interpretable that way. That they were carrying what David was looking for was incidental. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If you would like to start a Themes section then there is likely enough material from sources to cover the themes of dystopia in the film and its emphasis on David as a monster villain according to Edelstein and Wilkinson. Your edits to Plot are not letting me know if you are following the reliable sources on the extent of David as a high-level villain according to both Edelstein and Wilkinson, and to what ends David has effectively commandeered the colony ship. This is covered by reliable sources which you appear to be removing against these reliable sources, Edelstein and Wilkiinson, which support its mention as important to the plot. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The plot section already has a reliable source: the movie itself. I do not exactly know the material you are using, so perhaps it would be best for you to create a theme section, if you're so inclined to add that source materials. Once again, you can keep your reliable source and materials in the article. It doesn't have to be in plot section; it can be elsewhere. I already suggested the alternative that let us follow both guidelines of reliable source and word count. We can keep the plot section short while keeping the material at the same time. That I cut it does not mean I contradict a reliable source. That you place it in a new section does not mean we contradict a reliable source. In no way that WP:reliable source policy indicates that it has to be in plot section. I can see no reason why you should be unhappy. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I would like you to consult WP:FILMPLOT. Notable parts being:
"Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source."
"If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." Your articles and references definitely fall into interpretation category. It is how they viewed the scene, not what is.
"The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." This last one is the reason why I removed David's taunts to Daniels, and Wagner's music. Neither are consequential. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That material already appears in the Critical responses section with links which you have apparently not bothered to read. My point is again is to follow the reliable sources as they already appear in the Critical response section. Since you have not read this material you should not be removing the additions made to the Plot based on the reliable sources which emphasize the importance of David to the Plot. This is apparent since you appear to disagree with the emphasis which the reliable sources make about importance of David to the plot. If you are not reading the reliable sources then you should not be removing text based on your own personal reading of the film. All Wikipedia editors need to follow the reliable sources. You have just stated that you have not read them. After you read the reliable sources which are already linked for you in the article, then tell me why you are discounting the importance of David in the Plot section. Otherwise the material needs to be added, possibly in your own version if you prefer, though not deleted since they follow reliable sources on the importance of David in the film. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that you and I are online at the same time, it's great that we can discuss this in real time. I've already read the article. Per WP:GOODREFS, a citation should directly support the statement. There is no statement that outright says "David misinforms the crew" or something along the line. Also, there is no requirement that I have to read your reference before I edit.
""Since you have not read this material you should not be removing the additions made to the Plot based on the reliable sources which emphasize the importance of David to the Plot." There are no such rules.
"If you are not reading the reliable sources then you should not be removing text based on your own personal reading of the film." It is not my personal reading of the film. That David "tells" or "says" or "states" is not my personal interpretation. It is the simplest description of the event according to "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." That he "tells" "says" "states" lies is no contradiction. That form of wording does not contradict any source material. He does "say" "tell" "state". Whether it is a lie is a different matter. The neutral form of wording stands.
"Otherwise the material needs to be added, possibly in your own version if you prefer, though not deleted since they follow reliable sources on the importance of David in the film." It can be deleted from the plot section. It already has a place in the article. For the third time, there is no such rule that you have to place it in plot section. You already put the source and reference in appropriate place. We did not omit David's action and describe his actions due to his importance. The plot summarizes everything in the film and give the entire film equal weight without being overly detailed. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back on this. Let's make this simpler since you are online at this time, and you've seen the film. I agree with the reliable sources that David in central to the plot. Do you agree or disagree with this comment on David? If its one way or the other then just state why you think David is or is not important to the Plot of the film? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
David is the most developed character of the plot. He is important. I cannot, however, see why that you would like to emphasize so much that he lies when we are going to tell the readers so anyway in the next part of the plot. You are making this a one-man crusade. Please consider studying WP:OWN. "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. [...] however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it." You cannot dictate what goes in and out. I follow guidelines, and I assure you that I am very familiar with it. Consider also that a lot of editors find it more pleasant to read that part in the neutral form of wording. And they seem to find it redundant to reveal that David lies twice when we describe each character's actions only once. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
No-one at Wikipedia owns any of the articles. The current Plot summary, based on the reliable sources, seems to fall short of giving an adequate view of David as a villain at the proportion of a Frankenstein monster according to Edelstein and Wilkinson, which are linked for you in the article. That's all I'm stating, and if you can tweak the wording to make this emphasis more plain then give it a try and I'll try to support. The David being related in reliable sources seems more of a villain than the one which is summarized in the current version of the Plot according to the reliable sources which you can link and look at. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"Seems to fall short" according to your opinion, I'm afraid. And no, you and I have to follow WP:FILMPLOT. This is more important than your opinion or mine. "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." I stated the simplest description. No more. The interpretation goes in a different section. You already have it in critical response section. And for the forth time, David is already VERY apparent as villian. We described him unleashing black liquid, killing Shaw, capturing Daniels, feeding Oram to facehuggers. That he lies is already apparent. There is no justification in excessive details. Anthonydraco (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Look out for the gooney bird[edit]

The importance of air superiority I don't dispute. However, when you lead with Mitchell, IMO, you undermine the relevance to Midway. Indeed, what you describe seems better placed on fighter aircraft or an air superiority page, where the impact of Midway can be discussed. If the battle did, indeed, redefine the matter, a single line (suitably cited), rather than a history of the theory of airpower, is all that's warranted--& that belongs at the end of the "impact" section, not the 2d graph. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Francis Bacon[edit]

Nice work. The article has been a structural nightmare since it began, glad to see you are addressing. Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thanks for the note. The article is starting look a little better, and after someone takes a second look at the citations and the image details in the article, then the article might be closer to an eventual peer review evaluation. If you have any ideas or requests for additions to the article, then this might be a good time to share them. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Long plot[edit]

Until it ceases to be a detailed plot, leave the template in-place. It's not productive. See the article's talk page for one example of how the plot is too detailed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Could you indicate what type of shorter version, 10 percent cut, 20 percent cut, etc. If you are following a strict 700-750 word length limit then indicate what target you wish to set based on the current word length. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I gave one example on the article's talk page. There are simply too many intricate details. If you're talking strict, it's 400–700 words, not 750, but that's not the issue. It's essentially trivial content that's included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Report needs clickable diffs[edit]

Hello ManKnowsInfinity. Regarding this report. I formatted the header of your 3RR report, but it would be helpful to admins if you would supply clickable diffs, so we can examine the actual text that was changed, to see if it was a revert. Did you use Twinkle to generate the diffs? If so maybe you could try one more time so your report contains diffs that are properly bracketed. There are complete instructions at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 3#can't you make this simpler?. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Peter Navarro[edit]

You've been warned per the WP:AN3 report for edit warring and adding unsourced information to a WP:BLP article. If you make further edits of the article that don't have a prior consensus on the talk page you are risking a block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

My concerns last week were for the BLP violations in the article and I have no interest in edit warring on that page. If anyone nominates that article for speedy deletion in its current form then I would support the speedy deletion. I have no interest in the further editing of that article's Talk page or of that article which appears to be in violation of BLP guidelines at Wikipedia. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Egon Schiele[edit]

I reverted your edits on the Egon Schiele article because I noticed much of the text you added was copy-pasted from another website. If you feel this is unjust, take up the issue at the Egon Schiele Talk page. Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: There is also a note on your Talk page. There was no copy-paste of any type. This was all material from the article as it stood this morning which was badly out of chronological sequence. I am prepared to put the article into chronological sequence but it is only three-quarters of the way there. Do you want me to complete putting the article into chronological sequence since it is almost there following the edit sequence I have initiated this morning? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock[edit]

Just having a look at the FA criteria and found that the images need some alt text adding. Can you do this? Keith D (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Also need to close off the GA nomination before the FA can be started. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The FA recommendation is to use a mentor for first time nominations may be we should pick one to guide us through the process. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Keith D: That all sounds good. If there is some second tier of "alt text" needed on the images in the article then let me know what this is or give me a link for an example of what you mean, and I'll try to turn to it. Regarding your next point, my understanding is that the FA template nomination will simply replace the GA template that is currently on the Talk page for the article, and the GA nomination will be deleted by bot automatically once its replaced by the FA template nomination there. Regarding another mentor for peer review then if you have someone in mind then that sounds fine. At the same time, you do have four peer review articles and that might be good enough to go ahead with the nomination. Let me know your preference. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Some details of the |alt= is given at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Keith D (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That should cover them all now since only one of them had an alt image from before. One of the images I shifted right to left for his peak period. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the work. I have picked Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) out of the list as they do arts related articles, will see what they say. Some of the mentors appear to have some niche fields of interest. Keith D (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Those were nice edits by you yesterday. I have noticed overnight that Curly is busy with real life and likely will not be able to do this. Any other options or feeling about a second choice or option? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
May be Curly could suggest someone else who could progress if they are not available. Keith D (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Its hard to predict if another person can be found for this. Choosing at random from the Adopter list, this editor here [10] seems to have several FA articles and is a former Adopter, though no longer. Possibly he could help as an article mentor if you would like to try? Otherwise, maybe your previous peer reviews together with Curly offering occasional oversight (he said he could not be a full-time mentor) might do the trick. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I could not find that user on the Mentor list, may-by you looked at a different list? Keith D (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Keith D: Congratulations on your sixth GA article yesterday. The editor I listed above was actually not on the Mentor list though he was on the list for Adopters here [11] which may or may not be related. He does have an FA article which might help. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alfred Hitchcock[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alfred Hitchcock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Drown Soda -- Drown Soda (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Alfred Hitchcock[edit]

I've looked through the Alfred Hitchcock article and made some changes. Most are minor, but I did overhaul the citations so that all of the books cited are done so in a Harvard format (only some were originally), as per WP:FACR 2c. Some GA articles are pretty much ready for FAC the moment they are promoted, others are not. This one falls into the latter category. Before putting it through FAC, I'd make these changes:

  • Try and find page numbers for the books cited without a specific page. Though its not required by policy, you would probably run into opposition from reviewers without them. If its not possible to find a page number (if, for example, you are using an online book with no page numbers) see if you can supply a chapter of subsection number and name under the "loc=" parameter (used in lieu of page= or p=) in a harvnb template like so: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2011|loc=Chapter 7: Later Life}}</ref>
  • The further reading section now should have all of the isbn numbers in place. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and expand the lead. Generally the first paragraph in a an FA biography will very broadly explain who the person is and what about them is notable. The second paragraph will discuss their life, and a third paragraph might be used too. The last paragraph usually discusses legacy. I couldn't find any FA-bios for directors of Hitchcock's standing, but I think this FA bio will give you a good idea of how to format the lead: Miriam Makeba. Also, the lead should not say anything that is not supported in the body of the article. For example, the lead currently says "His 1929 film, Blackmail, is often cited as the first British sound feature film." But the article body only says "It was an early "talkie", often cited by film historians as a landmark film, and is among the first British talkie feature films." That is not the same thing.
  • The lead section has been largely rewritten this morning. Let me know if this can be improved further. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some overlinking on this page. The rule I use is wikilink the notable things in the lede, then wikilink everything you want to the first time it appears in the body of the article, but nothing more (except in photo captions).
  • This was started by me in the lead section and maybe you can see more places to do this. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some things which do not have citations (I've tagged a few). Generally the rule is make sure every paragraph ends with a citation.
  • The citation tags should all now be addressed. The cite tag for the Hitchcock cameos section already has a main article link and may need stronger wording for emphasis. Let me know what looks best for readers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd remove the photos of the mosaics. Because they are 2D works and the mosaics are the only things of focus in the photos, they might in fact be copyrighted.
  • They have been there for a while though there is no reason for you to trim the images which do not add to the article's clarity. Another editor yesterday did some deletions of some of the images which you could look at. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't overdo it with photos for each film. We don't need two visual representations each for North By Northwest, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, or Notorious, unless both display something of significance. The use of the screenshot of Rope is I think the best example of what you want, with a photo that displays an asthetic of the film. However, the caption of that photo makes an assertion that is not directly supported by cited text in the body.
  • Too many images is not helpful and you might trim them further. Another editor started with this yesterday. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the citations are in odd places. For example, under "Early War Years" it says "Joan Fontaine[72] won Best Actress Oscar[22] for her performance." If these citations support that whole statement, they should go at the end.
  • I think more areas of this article need further explanation. For example, under "British silent films" its says "Some commentators regard this piece as the first truly "Hitchcockian"[39][40] film, incorporating such themes as the "wrong man"." The term "wrong man" is not explained further here nor under the "Asthetic" section.
  • A separate editor incorrectly used "wrong man" as a short form for "falsely accused innocent man" or "misidentified innocent man" which is the preferred wording. If you or any other editor sees any of these please correct them to the preferred wording. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The "Further Reading" section is way too long. FA reviewers are going to wonder, "If there is much more material on Hitchcock out there of great importance to the reader as indicated by this list, why has its information not already been included in the article?" If you want to preserve all these sources for future reference, either move the majority of them to a list on the Talk Page or comment them out. Also, the little explanations that accompany most sources under the "Further Reading" section are basically original research and need to be removed.
  • We just trimmed about ten of these titles during GA review, let me know how many cites are reasonable there. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Double check to make sure every thing is NPOV. The statement "an "indirect" sex appeal of English women—ladylike in public, but whores in the bedroom" is pushing the line.
  • Make sure all book sources have some sort of identification number, like an ISBN or OCLC. And if you want to list the publication location for one, FA reviewers will probably urge you to include it for all.
  • Isbn numbers have been added for all of the further reading section. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Your citation templates for this are all helpful and they should all be addressed at this time. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Indy beetle: That is really a useful list of suggestions and I hope you can look at and possibly improve some of the preliminary edits which I have started on and now completed pending further responses. I have also added some short comments above. Possibly you could mention if the article is getting closer to a possible joint FA nomination. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've got my hands full at the moment with school but I'll take a closer look at the article this weekend. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentor[edit]

I eventually got round to asking for someone to step-up on this one rather than randomly picking off the list. See who throws their hat into the ring. Keith D (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FA Mentor where someone has made some comments. Keith D (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hedren[edit]

Hi, please give precise page numbers as requested. Not only can I not find this in Wood (2015), he seems to say exactly the opposite, so the material cannot stay in the article as written, if it isn't in the source. Unless it's well-sourced, it's a BLP violation, because it arguably leaves a bad impression both of Hedren and of the author. Therefore, please either remove it or supply page numbers so that I can verify it and fix the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The Michael Wood edit has no original research in it and is fully attributed. This matter is currently being discussed on the peer review page. Please keep comments in one place on the peer review page without creating multiple threads. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hitchcock and dispute resolution[edit]

I see you haven't edited in a few days, but I'm writing to bring your attention to the policy at Wikipedia:Clean start. There is nothing wrong with discontinuing use of an old account and starting a new one for legitimate reasons, but you'll note that a key aspect of this policy is that you avoid revisiting disputes and behavior that caused you problems in the past. You are current not in compliance with this part of the policy since you are getting into disputes with the same editors. I sincerely hope you can edit peacefully here, but I'm advising you that if you continue along your current vector at Hitchcock, I will be compelled to identify your previous account(s) as part of dispute resolution and to prevent further disruption. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)