Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/to do

1. Similar articles: The article is a level 3 vital article. There are excellent FAs in that group that we can model this one on: Charlie Chaplin (by Loeba and TrueHeartSusie3) and Walt Disney (by SchroCat).
2. Images: Look for images of Hitchcock as a boy, St Ignatius College, and the Henley Telegraph and Cable Company. Verify copyright status of all other images.
3. Reliable sources: Check that everything is reliably sourced. Multiple editors and IP addresses have written the article over many years, then others have added sources after the fact. A significant number of citations covered just one issue in the preceding sentence or paragraph, or the issue needing a source was mentioned by the source only in passing, or the sources were not reliable (e.g. unstable websites and dead links). I've fixed a lot of these and tagged others. I've probably checked about a third at this point.
4. Appropriate sources: We should try to move the article in the direction of relying on a smaller number of authoritative sources. We shouldn't say (or imply) "according to newspaper X in 2017", when really it's "according to Truffaut in 1967".
5. Citations: Lots of citations had details missing or wrong, e.g. authors, dates, page numbers. I've fixed a lot, and I'm tagging the rest.
6. Text: The multiple authorship means there is good writing followed by poor followed by tangents. Portions of the text remain in place from 2008 and earlier. For example, "Storyboards and production" on 30 December 2008 was pretty much the same as on 16 December 2017 and mostly unsourced. The writing section consisted of nothing but quotations.
7. Childhood and education: There was one paragraph on childhood and four sentences on education. I've expanded that section.✓
8. How he got into film: There was no information about how he made the move from technical clerk for Henley's to working in film. I've added an explanation (final paragraph of Henley's section and first paragraph of Silent films section).
9. Germany: We should say a bit more about his time in Germany.
10. The man is missing. After the childhood and education sections, there is very little about the person; most of the article is a straightforward description of the films. See how Charlie Chaplin discusses the man throughout. As we discuss Hitchcock's career, the article should focus on how his style and skills developed; any problems during filming with producers, actors and others; his marriage and collaboration with his wife; how the move to the US affected him; how World War II affected him; his mother and brother dying within a few months of each other in 1942; his deteriorating health; his sense of humour and irony; what he said about himself (he was known for his tight control over his image); his view of his films. Suggested sources:

    (1) For Hitchcock's view of himself (this is a long interview with Truffaut): Truffaut, François (1983) [1967]. Hitchcock (Revised ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

    (2) Authorized biography: Taylor, John Russell (1996) [1978]. Hitch: The Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Da Capo Press.

    (3) Spoto, Donald (1992) [1976]. The Art of Alfred Hitchcock (2nd ed.). New York: Anchor Books.

    (4) Spoto, Donald (1999) [1983]. The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Da Capo Press.

    (5) McGilligan, Patrick (2003). Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. New York: Regan Books.

    (6) Spoto, Donald (2008). Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and his Leading Ladies. New York: Harmony Books.

11. Health. This was an issue throughout his life but the article barely discusses it. I've added some but we need more. Already in 1943 (when he was only 44), the Occidental Insurance Company of Los Angeles refused him life insurance. Hitchcock told Balcon: hernia, jaundice, gall bladder removed, internal bleeding (all in 12 weeks), gout, pacemaker installed in 1974. His wife's health: cancer 1958, two strokes 1971 and 1976.
12. Estate. We say nothing about his estate when he died.
13. Analysis: There is almost no analysis. The themes and motifs section is almost empty. The article says little about how the films were received at the time and how that differs from now (as Sloan asks: "deep artist? superficial manipulator?"). Views of Hitchcock have changed; the article presents a very positive view as though that was always the case. Suggested sources:

    (1) Wood, Robin (2002). Hitchcock's Films Revisited (Revised ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

    (2) Walker, Michael (2005). Hitchcock's motifs. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    (3) Sloan, Joan E. (1993). Alfred Hitchcock: The Definitive Filmography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14. Representation of women. Add a summary of the scholarly literature. Suggested sources:

    (1) Modleski, Tania (2016) [1988]. The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge.

    (2) White, Susan (2015). "Alfred Hitchcock and Feminist Film Theory (Yet Again)". In Freedman, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 109–126.

15. Tippi Hedren: Hedren's experiences were mentioned in one paragraph in the "After 1961" section, discussing Marnie and were argued against. No mention of what happened during filming of The Birds. No mention of the Marnie rape scene or the screenwriter being removed when he objected to it. No mention of Grace Kelly accepting the part then cancelling. The film The Girl (about Hedren) was first mentioned in the Awards and honours section. I expanded the text; it's currently in The Birds and Marnie sections.
16. Writing: Tighten the writing throughout.
17. Citation style: Make citation style consistent; for example, there are full stops after the long refs but not the short (changing from harvnb to sfn will fix that).
18. Add {{inflation}}.✓

SarahSV ^(talk) 23:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)