Wikipedia:Peer review/Alfred Hitchcock/archive1

Alfred Hitchcock

I've listed this article for peer review because ManKnowsInfinity (talk · contribs) and myself are looking to do a joint nomination for Featured Article. It is an old featured article that was de-listed in 2004 but we have recently brought it up to Good Article status. It has been suggested that we look for a wider audience to gain further comments that need addressing before actually making the FA nomination.

Looking for any prose, formatting or other problems that may prevent it from becoming a Featured Article.

Thanks, Keith D (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

I'm hoping to read this through today, Keith. Looking forward to it! ceranthor 19:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Keith D (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• "referred to as the "Master of Suspense". He pioneered many elements of the suspense and psychological thriller genres." - redundant to mention suspense twice in such close proximity
• "He also fashioned for himself a recognisable directorial style" - is the 'for himself' necessary?
  • Removed. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "and the term Hitchcockian is now often used to refer to his style of filmmaking." - filmmaking style is better
  • Changed. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "His work often features fugitives on the run alongside "icy blonde" female characters." - if you're going to use a quote, it's probably a good idea to reference it
• "His first thriller, The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927), helped shape the thriller genre in film. His 1929 film, Blackmail, is often cited as the first British sound feature film. Two of his 1930's thrillers, The 39 Steps (1935) and The Lady Vanishes (1938), are ranked among the greatest British films of the 20th century." - Sentence structure could use some more variation here. Also, ranked by whom?
• "which secured his reputation as a director of American films capable of securing Academy Award nominations and winning Oscars for his films" - redundant to say Academy Awards and Oscars in the same sentence; also, do you mean the string of films or just the last one? You should clarify
• "which are regularly ranked among the greatest films of all time." - again, by whom?
• "In a 2012 survey, the British Film Institute replaced Citizen Kane as the best film ever made with Hitchcock's Vertigo from 1958." - awkward subject use here; I'd say "Vertigo" replaced Citizen Kane as the BFI's best film ever made" or something more along those lines
  • Restructured sentence. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "where Hitchcock was forced to request the officer lock him away for five minutes." - "forced to request the officer lock him away" reads a bit awkwardly to me
• "His parents were both of half-English and half-Irish ancestry.[5][6]" - This sentence seems disjointed where it is currently; I think it could be integrated into the previous sentence with his parents' occupations
  • Relocated and joined sentences. Keith D (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "McGilligan writes that Hitchcock "certainly" excelled academically." - since you name Gene Adair previously, to stay consistent you should give McG's first name too
  • Added first name & wikilinked. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "During the First World War, Hitchcock was called up to serve in the British Army;" - called to serve, up doesn't seem necessary
• "he mainly engaged in theoretical briefings, weekend drills, and exercises" - you haven't been using the serial comma previously, so stay consistent throughout the article on whether you use it or not
  • Removed serial comma. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• ""And There Was No Rainbow" (1920) is Hitchcock's first brush with possibly censurable material." - censurable can easily be confused with censorable, so make sure your intention is clear. Maybe controversial would serve your purpose more clearly?
• "A young man goes out looking for a brothel, only to stumble into the house of his best friend's girl." - no need for the "out" after goes, and I'd clarify that "girl" refers to his best friend's lover/date/girlfriend
  • Remove word "out". Keith D (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "as it is a short dialogue piece resembling antic dialogue from a music hall skit" - as it is... reads as stilted; I'd rewrite it in the active voice if you can
• ""The History of Pea Eating" (1920) is a satirical disquisition" - I hadn't heard of a disquisition, so it may help to define it in parentheses or with a comma
• "After Famous Players-Lasky pulled out of London in 1922, Hitchcock stayed as part of the studio staff." - Think you're missing an "on" after stayed
  • Added. Keith D (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "He was hired by a new firm run by Michael Balcon and others after being noticed at work on the short film Always Tell Your Wife in early 1923." - any further details here?
• "screenwriter, art director, and assistant director" - again, serial comma or no? There are a few other instances I noticed; please make sure you keep it consistent throughout the entire article!
  • Remove another serial comma. Keith D (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• " He was likewise influenced by other foreign filmmakers whose work he absorbed as one of the earliest members of the "seminal" London Film Society, formed in 1925" - does the source mention any other names?
• "The production was cancelled because of financial problems and[31]" - why put the reference after and?
  • Moved ref to end of sentence. Keith D (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Michael Balcon[32] gave Hitchcock another opportunity for a directing credit with The Pleasure Garden (1925)" - why the citation after the name here?
  • Moved ref to end of sentence. Keith D (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "possibly released under the title Fear o' God, in the United States" - don't think you need a comma after Fear o' God
• "misidentified innocent man or the falsely accused innocent man" - should be "misidentified or falsely accused innocent man"
• "Their only child, daughter Patricia, was born on 7 July of the same year.[45]" - think you should put a "their" before daughter
• "Hitchcock released two espionage thrillers in 1936, Sabotage, loosely based on Joseph Conrad's novel about a woman" - you link the novel, but you should name it explicitly as well
• "who discovers that her husband, a London cinema owner, is an agent terrorist" - terrorist agent sounds better, or even just terrorist
• "The film saw Hitchcock receive the 1939 New York Film Critics Circle Award" - Award link needs a non breaking space.
  • I assume yoou mean between the year & wikilink, added. Keith D (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Hitchcock was lauded in Britain, where he was dubbed "Alfred the Great" by Picturegoer magazine." - needs a citation
• "Filmed in the first year of the Second World War " - need a comma after War
• "Joan Fontaine won Best Actress Oscar for her performance." - this sentence is somewhat jarring and disjointed in its current location; I'd suggest moving it around
• "Hitchcock was forced to use Universal contract player Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane (a freelancer who signed a one-picture deal with Universal)," - forced by whom?
• "In 2012, Hitchcock featured in the BBC Radio 4 series The New Elizabethans to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. A panel of 7 academics, journalists and historians named Hitchcock among the group of people in the UK "whose actions during the reign of Elizabeth II have had a significant impact on lives in these islands and given the age its character".[77]" - confused with the placement of this...

I've gotten down to Post-war Hollywood years, which is where I'll start my next round of comments once the above are all resolved. ceranthor 02:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: That was a remarkable list and it will be nice to look forward to the next round of comments. Keith has taken care of the technical requests made and responded within the text you have listed above, and I have taken care of the other prose oriented edits with comments elaborated in the edit history of the article as I have made the prose changes one-by-one with individual comments in each case. All of your comments should now be in the article text. Looking forward to the next round of comments. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll shoot for another round tonight. ceranthor 20:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hitchcock worked for Selznick again when he directed Spellbound (1945), which explores psychoanalysis[91] and features a dream sequence " - link dream sequence
  • Wikilink added. Keith D (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Rozsa's Piano Concerto Op. 31 " - link?
• "Hitchcock formed an independent production company with his friend Sidney Bernstein called Transatlantic Pictures,[95] through which he made two films," - not sure through is the right word here
• " He matched one of Warner Bros.'[99] " - why put the reference here?
  • Moved to end of sentence. Keith D (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "His film Strangers on a Train (1951) was based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith." - novel of the same name?
  • Added & wikilink to novel article. Keith D (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "It became The Alfred Hitchcock Hour in 1962." - might help to mention how long that ran
• "The composer Bernard Herrmann suggested the music be used" - be used is redundant
  • Removed. Keith D (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Oscar for Best Original Song" - link?
  • Wikilink added. Keith D (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Vertigo contains a camera technique developed by Irmin Roberts that has been copied many times by filmmakers commonly referred to as a dolly zoom. Vertigo premiered in the San Sebastián International Film Festival, where Hitchcock won a Silver Seashell.[114] Vertigo" - repetitive sentence structure: "Vertigo X", "Vertigo Y"...
  • Changed the second occurrence to "The film", may need third instance changing. Keith D (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "nd was the last collaboration between Stewart and Hitchcock.[115] Its critical reputation grew. " - the second sentence here doesn't help much; it should be expanded
• "By this time, Hitchcock had filmed in many areas of the U.S.[116]" - disjointed sentence; kind of a non-sequitur
• "Bernard Herrmann composed the former and was a consultant on the latter,[133] also acting as composer for Marnie." - is this last bit about Marnie covered by the citation? It looks like OR since it doesn't have a citation after it
• " The first, Torn Curtain (1966)," - no need to link it twice
  • Remove second wikilink. Keith D (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The Last Days of Alfred Hitchcock.[137][138]" - could use a non breaking space here
  • Unsure where there should be a non-breaking space, unless you mean where the refs are, which is not spaced. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Norman Bates has troubles with his mother in Psycho."- this is obvious to anyone familiar with Psycho, but you should give a little bit more specifics here for a general reader
• General comment: other wikipedia articles should only be linked at their first mention with the body of the text (excluding the lead). see MOS:DUPLINK
• "Hitchcock's films sometimes feature characters struggling in their relationships with their mothers" - any reliable sources to cite to support this claim? It's obviously true, but right now it reads like original research
• I think the aesthetic subsections are distracting, and this whole section could probably be combined into just two sections: psychology and then themes/signatures/motifs.

Just style, awards, and archives left. ceranthor 04:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Many thanks for the detail review. I have covered off the ones marked above apart from the non-breaking space one as cannot work out where you want this to go, also the multiple wikilinks which will need time to do. ManKnowsInfinity has done the rest. If there are any more then I may be able to finish them before my enforced break without internet connection otherwise ManKnowsInfinity should be able to handle them. Keith D (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hitchcock supervised and guided his writers through every draft, insisting on a strict attention to detail" - remove the "a" before strict
  • Removed. Keith D (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The writing section consists almost entirely of quotes, which feels out of place in an encyclopedia article. It's fine to paraphrase the words of these scholars so long as you provide them with attribution; I think that would be more appropriate in a encyclopedia article.
• "According to the majority of commentators, Hitchcock's films were extensively storyboarded to the finest detail. " - including whom? Is there a citation for this?
• "the American correspondent of Cahiers du cinéma." - French film magazine Cahiers...
  • Inserted text. Keith D (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "A great example would be the celebrated crop-spraying sequence of North by Northwest which was not storyboarded at all" - the tone here is off and not entirely encyclopedic; it feels a bit crufty
• "represented Hitchcock's tendency of giving himself options in the editing room, " - represented Hitchcock's tendency to give himself
  • Modified. Keith D (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• ". According to Krohn, this and a great deal of other information revealed through his research of Hitchcock's personal papers, script revisions and the like refute the notion of Hitchcock as a director who was always in control of his films, whose vision of his films did not change during production, which Krohn notes has remained the central long-standing myth of Alfred Hitchcock." -this claim should be directly cited, since it seems controversial
• "His fastidiousness and attention to detail also found its way into each film poster for his films" - subject/verb agreement wrong
• "Hitchcock became known for his alleged observation, "Actors are cattle"." - citation?
• "He often, as with Cary Grant, used the same actors in many of his films.[161]" - is Cary Grant meant to be an example or are you comparing their approach? It's unclear
• "During the making of Lifeboat, Walter Slezak, who played the German villain, stated that Hitchcock knew the mechanics of acting better than anyone he knew." - citation?
• "Several critics have observed that despite his reputation as a man who disliked actors, several actors who worked with him gave fine, often brilliant performances and these performances contribute to the film's success." - verb switching here; watch out for this
  • Tweaked wording to loose second "performances", & may have covered comment. Keith D (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "As more fully discussed above," - remove this clause
  • Clause removed. Keith D (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Paragraph that ends with "His influence helped start a trend for film directors such as Rohmer and Truffaut to control artistic aspects of their films without answering to the film's producer." - has no citations
• "Hitchcock was a multiple nominee" - multiple-time nominee would be better; but even that's not quite right. Maybe was a nominee and winner for... since the multiplicity is suggested by "A number of"
  • Removed word Multiple". Keith D (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ceranthor 01:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Those again were useful in improving the article. Along with Keith's edits from yesterday, I have also added some new citations to improve the research aspects of the article for readers using the bibliography. Keith's comments are included within your comment above and my other comments can be found one-by-one on the edit history page for your last set of comments above. Looking forward to more of your comments. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

To avoid possible confusion I won't comment on the prose until Ceranthor has finished his pass. In the meantime I see that there are numerous uncited statements, many at the ends of paragraphs. For example:

• "During this period, Hitchcock directed segments for a BIP musical film revue Elstree Calling (1930) and directed a short film featuring two Film Weekly scholarship winners entitled An Elastic Affair (1930)."
• "Hitchcock was nominated for the Best Director award, his first of five such nominations, but did not win."
• "This was a sequence of captioned photographs inviting the reader to inspect the pictures for clues to the murderer's identity; Hitchcock cast the performers as themselves, such as Woolley, Doris Merrick and make-up man Guy Pearce. The article was reprinted in Games Magazine in November/December 1980."
• " I Confess (1953) was set in Quebec with Montgomery Clift as a Catholic priest."
• "With Dial M, Hitchcock experimented with 3D cinematography, with the film now being available in the 3D format on Blu-ray."
• The whole of the penultimate paragraph of the "Early peak years" section (beginning "At the height of Hitchcock's success...")
• "Following the first film directed by Hitchcock, Psycho has since become an American horror franchise consisting of six films loosely based on the Psycho novels by Robert Bloch, namely Psycho, Psycho II, Psycho III, Bates Motel, Psycho IV: The Beginning, the scene-by-scene colour 1998 remake of the original film, and additional merchandise spanning various media."
• "The first, Torn Curtain (1966), with Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, precipitated the bitter end of the twelve-year collaboration between Hitchcock and composer Bernard Herrmann. Herrmann was sacked when Hitchcock was unsatisfied with his score, and replaced with British composer John Addison. Topaz (1969), based on a Leon Uris novel, is partly set in Cuba. Both received mixed reviews from critics."
• "Beginning with Torn Curtain, Hitchcock was finally able to blatantly include plot elements previously forbidden in American films."

• Adding Hitchcock Frenzy here for emphasis on his experimental use of nudity in his films. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• The entire final paragraph of the "After 1961" section

• Added two citations for his "Family Plot" film. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• The entire opening paragraph of the "Psychology of characters" section

• Citation to Psycho has been added regarding its psychoanalysis approaches. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Almost all the second of this section's paragraph

• This second paragraph of the section was written with orientation to Whitington (2009) and Dowd (2012) as an enumeration of the alluring blondes which Hitchcock preferred to feature in his films opposite the falsely accused fugitive character portrayals. It uses the approach of listing the blondes in sequence as they appeared in his films following the 2 citations given for Whitington and Dowd. The 3rd citation in that section is for the quote which was taken from the Variety obit for Hitchcock from 1980. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hitchcock once commented, "The writer and I plan out the entire script down to the smallest detail, and when we're finished all that's left to do is to shoot the film. Actually, it's only when one enters the studio that one enters the area of compromise. Really, the novelist has the best casting since he doesn't have to cope with the actors and all the rest."

• This quote is from Bogdanovich, now placed into article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• The "Storyboards and production" section looks seriously under-cited (two long paragraphs cited to a single page of Bellour and Penley's book)

• The other main cite here is the Krohn book which I have added to Harvard and to this section twice. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hitchcock's innovations and vision have influenced a great number of filmmakers, producers and actors. His influence helped start a trend for film directors such as Truffaut and Rohmer to control artistic aspects of their films without answering to the film's producer."

• Cite added here. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There may well be more. FA standards for citation are high, and you will need to attend to all of these. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Its Friday before the week-end and that should be the full list from your comments above. Let me know if there are more so that I can include them. Some of them have been doubled up by using a second reference, and I have linked the franchise article for the film Psycho to cover the sequence of films. @Indy beetle: That should be all the citation templates which you were kind enough to let me know about. Another editor, DC, added some of those citations last night. Let me know if there are more of these which need to be addressed. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Psychology of characters" section has no citations after the first sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Kaganski reference was added to the Harvard cites and I then added it as a psychoanalysis book dealing with Hitchcock. Thanks for calling attention to this and let me know of any further list of comments and citations needed in the article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the citation issues I've noted above, which you seem to be dealing with, there are other general issues requiring attention:

• Blockquotes: I think there are far too many – eight in all, with six concentrated in the latter sections of the articles. In my view, blockquotes are a hindrance to smooth reading, often giving undue prominence to humdrum statements which could easily be absorbed or paraphrased in the text, if not omitted altogether. They should be used, if at all, very sparingly, preferably at the ends of sections to minimise disruption of the text. I suggest you look again at each, and ask whether they do indeed represent the best way of presenting this information.
• Paraphrasing: a somewhat related issue. If you look at the "Writing" subsection you'll see that virtually all the text in this section – including a blockquote – is direct quotation. Although snatches of direct speech, and the odd snappy phrase, can often be useful in highlighting a point, in general we should write the text ourselves, using paraphrase, and not simply tramscribe slabs of direct speech. This section is one example – there may well be others (I haven't looked that closely at the text yet).
• Listings: Again, I'm not sure how much of this is a general problem throughout the article, but The "Awards and honours" section ends with a list of thirteen names who participated in a documentary on Psycho's shower scene. I'd personally consider this information as trivia, not worth more than a brief mention if at all, and certainly not worth the exhaustive list of names. Other examples may come to light when I do my detailed reading.

I hope to begin careful reading next week, but may not make substantive comments before the holidays. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Thanks for these comments, and for the drop in comment below for Sarah. Regarding the blockquotes, I have shortened many of them by half. Some of the direct Hitchcock quotes I have tried to keep because they were Hitchcock's own words. Let me know what you think. Regarding the paraphrasing, I have dropped that sentence at the start of that section and replaced it while dropping that extra quoted material. I hope that helps. Lastly, regarding the Listings question at the end of the article, I have shortened the list by half and kept some representative names. Your list of items to look at are useful and if you have more then please list them here either during the holidays or when time allows. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I'll add further comments when I go through the text in detail, which will not alas be before Christmas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looking forward to your comments. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

The article has buried the alleged sexual harassment of Tippi Hedren (Guardian) in the section "After 1961", rather than treating it separately or in the "Approach towards actors" section. It also appears to argue against the allegations with a "however": "However, Hedren appeared in two TV shows during the two years after Marnie", then it quotes women who did not experience harassment, as though that has any bearing on the veracity of allegations from a woman who says she did. There are comments related to this on the talk page from March 2017; pinging Gcampbel, Khamba Tendal, and Manky b.

There is no analysis of his representation of women. "Psychology of characters" is a bit of a laundry list. The section ends with the sexist claim (in Wikipedia's voice) that English women are "ladylike in public, though eager in the bedroom". Please make sure that the article doesn't present a heterosexual male perspective as the default.

To create a section about Hitchcock's attitude toward women that makes use of feminist film theory, you could take a look at Tania Modleski, The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory, third edition (2016) [1988], which discusses lots of sources and approaches. You could write to her and request a reading list. Also see this by Bidisha: "There's the vamp, the tramp, the snitch, the witch, the slink, the double-crosser and, best of all, the demon mommy. Don't worry, they all get punished in the end."

By the way, you have a blockquote sandwiched in between images in the section "Later peak years: From Vertigo to Psycho". In my browser window the blockquote is long and thin with lots of white space on each side. The mobile version handles the blockquote well, but it sandwiches the next two sentences between two images. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on this important and sensitive issue. The main article for the posthumus claims made by Hendren currently appears at the Wikipedia film article for The Girl (2012 TV film). Since I am an editor of both of these articles your comments are of interest to me. At present, I recall editing the passages you refer to on The Girl to make a more explicit statement of her claims in the Wikipedia article there since the previous editors did not state this with sufficient frankness based on my watching of the film. In dealing with this as a posthumus claim made about Hitchcock, it seems that adding the link to the main article for The Girl in that section at the bottom of the biography article for Hitchcock, along with some further details in the text which I have added, should address the main points. The main article for this general topic is found at the Wikipedia link above for The Girl and possibly you could visit that page for further review and comments. Separately, the bunching of images you mentioned, I have tried to address by shifting them to other sections which should help. Two of your pings above seem to be red links and may not have gone through as you intended. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of Hedren's comments were made after Hitchcock died, but she did say in 1973, while he was alive, that she had had to stop working with him because he was "too possessive".

The Girl (2012 TV film) has the same tone as this article, in that it seems to imply that Hedren was lying. For example: "Hedren's account contrasted with the many interviews she gave about her time with Hitchcock, her presence at the AFI Life Achievement Award ceremony honoring him in 1979, and her presence at his funeral." (This is followed by two sources, neither of which say that.) So what if she spoke positively and went to his funeral? There's no inconsistency in being sexually harassed and continuing to work with and speak positively about someone, as the Weinstein allegations have surely demonstrated. As for other women defending him, one of them said: "You had to take Hitch with a pinch of salt." That sounds very much like "oh, that's just Harvey."

Anyway, the point isn't to support or undermine the allegations, but to include them prominently in this article, and to add a summary of the considerable academic literature on Hitchcock's representation of women. See WP:FACR 1(c): "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature."

The problem with the blockquote has disappeared, so thanks for fixing that. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reading that film article for The Girl. Since The Girl is a peer reviewed article, it would be of some interest for me to see some of your edits or comments placed there since it does have a controversy section. Also, if you could let me know if what I have added near the end of the Hitchcock article is useful. The difficulty is that the Hedren account remains relatively isolated and it is contradicted by Kim Novak as a fellow actress who worked with Hitchcock. That makes it different from Weinstein who had a string of complaints filed by multiple individuals affected by him. There has not been a reply from your two pings above and it would nice to hear from other editors on this matter. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You've added it under "Awards and honours" and sourced it to a newspaper. The article needs a section on Hitchcock and women, which would include the Hedren allegations but would also summarize the academic literature. Gcampbel wrote in March 2017 on Talk:Alfred Hitchcock, regarding "treatment of women in life and in films": "I teach film and I would not be able to teach Hitchcock responsibly without at least mentioning the controversy, as a) it's notable and b) students will hear of it and interpret silence as intellectually irresponsible (and they'd be right to do so, in my view)." [1]

I see that the article lists several academic sources in the Bibliography section, but it doesn't seem to have used them much. Two sources are used a lot: Patrick McGilligan (2003). Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. Regan Books (cited 27 times), and Thomas Leitch (2002). The Encyclopedia of Alfred Hitchcock. Checkmark Books (18 times). But Gene Adair (2002). Alfred Hitchcock: Filming Our Fears. Oxford University Press, is used only twice to confirm basic facts. Adair deals with the Hedren allegations and would be a better source than a newspaper. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Childhood and education

"Childhood and education" section:

• The section should include the address at which he was born (517 The High Road).
• "Hitchcock was the second son and the youngest of three children." Is there a reason to emphasize the sons? You could try something like: "Hitchcock was born the youngest of three children (a girl and two boys) to William Hitchcock (1862–1914), a greengrocer, and Emma Jane Hitchcock (née Whelan, 1863–1942) in their home above their grocers' shop at 517 The High Road, Leytonstone, then part of Essex. His parents were Roman Catholics, both of half-English and half-Irish ancestry."
• The summary of the police-station story, sourced to McGilligan, does not reflect how McGilligan summarizes it. The first sentence of that anecdote relies on "The Dick Cavett Show. 8 June 1972". What was said about it on the Dick Cavett show?
• When he was six, the family moved to Salmon Lane, Limehouse, and bought two stores, which they ran as a fishmongers' and fish-and-chip shop. They lived above the latter at 130 Salmon Lane (McGilligan, p. 13). This should be mentioned, not least because he was bullied for smelling of fish.
• "Gene Adair reports that by 'most accounts, Alfred was only an average, or slightly above-average, student',[10] although Patrick McGilligan writes that Hitchcock 'certainly' excelled academically." The sources don't really contradict each other. Adair writes that Hitchcock was average until age 12 and thereafter was singled out for special achievement in several subjects. McGilligan does contradict himself, however; he writes later (p. 23): "He might have appeared thick to classmates, but he wasn't what he appeared."
• The article calls him Hitchcock throughout, which is good, but there's an Alfred in the sentence I quoted above.
• It doesn't mention the schools he attended before Salesian College. McGilligan says he attended Salesian for as little as one week before being withdrawn by his father and enrolled in St Ignatius in 1910. Adair says he briefly attended a couple of Catholic schools before St Ignatius. McGilligan names them.
• The chronology jumps around. You mention St Ignatius (which he started in 1910), then the lonely childhood, then the incident aged 5.
• The article should say something about the effect of his Jesuit education.
• "He often described a lonely and sheltered childhood that was worsened by his obesity". This is sourced to McGilligan, pp. 18–19, but I can't find mention of it there. McGilligan (p. 23) does say that he was shy and was bullied for being the big boy who smelled of fish.
• The article says he left St Ignatius when his father died, when Hitchcock was 15, sourced to McGilligan, p. 25, but McGilligan says he left just before he turned 14 (Adair, p. 15, says summer of 1913), and that his father died over a year later, in December 1914.
• It should say more about his time at the London County Council School of Engineering and Navigation.
• "His first piece, 'Gas' (1919) ... tells of a young woman who imagines that she is being assaulted one night in London." The story begins: "She had never been in this part of Paris before". And she imagines she is being assaulted and killed by a mob of men.
• "A young man goes looking for a brothel, only to stumble into the house of his best friend's own love interest." No mention of the youth of the man or a brothel in the story, and it is the wife, not love interest, of a friend, not best friend.
• Unclear: "selectively piqued material" and "comic emotional heights".
• No images in this section. Are there none of him as a boy, his place of birth (even a blue plaque), or of his school or Henley's?

In summary, there are quite a few problems in this section, caused by how the source material is presented and by the omission of interesting details, including details that explain other things in the article (e.g. he's bullied because he smells of fish, and he smells of fish because he lives above a fish-and-chip shop). I hope the list is helpful. I'd appreciate it if replies could be posted below rather than inside my post. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) Incorporating your additions as near to your format as is reasonable while adding the remaining links. Same for (2).

(2) Items 1 and 2 are combined into a single edit. Basically incorporating your format.

(3) The 1972 Cavett interview is somewhat anecdotal though it is in Hitchcock's own words and needs to be represented at that level. I have added the anecdotal context to clarify this for readers of the article.

(4) Salmon Lane now included as to your suggestion.

(5) Is your reading of this line quote the same is mine: "He might have appeared thick to classmates, but he wasn't what he appeared." This line quote I paraphrase as: "He might have appeared thick to classmates, but he wasn't (thick)." Is this the same paraphrase which you are using for this line quote?

(6) All name references to him in the article are as 'Hitchcock', and when a quotation is uses which applies his first name, then the first name is preserved in the quotation as written by the reliable source, as you identify it here.

(7) If you see value in the quick jumps from school-to-school in Hitchcock's early education then let me know. No major events occurring either in those schools or in his personal life at that time.

(8) The mention of those schools together are to support the statement about his Roman Catholic background, and not so much to cover his early school education. In the absence of a formal University education, it is difficult to assess fully what value there is in covering the details of his early years in non-University studies and what for others would be pre-University studies. Hitchcock learns his craft mostly by apprenticeship and by the in-roads he gained through his early writing ability.

(9) This was not a University Jesuit school but early school years. Biographers have generally not made much of Roman Catholicism being a dominant or controlling source through Hitchcock's life in filmmaking.

(10) Switch source to your page 23 from PM biography.

(11) The time spent at the London County Council School was quite short.

(12) Paris not London.

(13) 'His friend's wife' is better wording here.

(14) Simplify wording for those two expressions.

(15) Moving image of commemoration plaque at station to this section.

The list you presented here is quite useful. The edits included in the article should cover the 15 points you have covered above. The topics of Leading ladies in Hitchcock might be looked at if this is what you were referring to in some of your comments. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(Butting in): While you are working on this section, you should reconsider its title. "Childhood and education" is done before the end of the second paragraph. Thereafter it's about his army service, his early working life and his abortive attempts to be a creative writer. Some retitling or subdivision is surely called for. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Good comment for coming up with an alternative. Currently, I can try "Childhood, education and early writing", if that sounds better. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're not going to split, I'd suggest "Childhood, education and early non-film career" or similar. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, to bring the article to FA standard, it will have to become a summary of the high-quality secondary literature on Hitchcock, particularly the academic literature. The authors will have to immerse themselves in that, so that choices can be made about what to include. There's a great deal of material, for example, about the effect of Hitchcock's Jesuit upbringing.

I've only glanced at the article history, but this section seems to have been written by several editors over a period of years. Someone now has to take control of it. Every sentence should be checked against the sources to make sure there is a high degree of accuracy and precision, and to make sure that the most appropriate sources have been used. While you're doing that, you'll see that a lot of pertinent material is missing or poorly summarized. As you go through the section fixing that, you'll find that you're rewriting the section. Any observations I leave here are intended in that spirit; not points to be fixed before moving to the next point, but issues to be borne in mind while you're checking the sources, expanding and rewriting.

I do think you should include where he was born, not only where he was brought up; I think that to have been born above the shop is interesting. There is a blue plaque; is there a free image of it that you could use in this section?

Regarding this addition:

In a 1972 interview Hitchcock anecdotally recalled the childhood incidents which might have led to his interest in macabre and psychological themes in his later film career. In one instance, Hitchcock related his mother picking him up at three months old and saying "Boo" to him only to evoke an unexpected lifelong response. In another anecdotal recollection, Hitchcock recalls .... According to Hitchcock's anecdotal recollection ...

I'm not sure what the function of "anecdotal" is here; I would remove it. I would also remove the "boo" story, at least as written. The Paris story: the woman imagines she is being assaulted by a mob of men. This is important, given the issues related to the representation of women that the article will, I hope, discuss. The reference to the brothel is still there; where have you taken that from?

You asked whether we both understood this the same way: "He might have appeared thick to classmates, but he wasn't what he appeared." Yes, I think so. It's odd to say he excelled academically while his classmates believed he was "thick". It's a contradiction. There's no indication that he excelled academically, but he was above average in several subjects. See Adair for details. Re: "The Dick Cavett Show. 8 June 1972", where can we see or read this interview?

SarahSV ^(talk) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your section split looks good, and I have rewritten parts of that section dealing with the Cavett interview. There are several copies of his 65-minute interview with Hitchcock on Youtube which can be easily located by typing in their names next to each other there. I can link it here if needed. You appear to have the 800-page PMcGilligan biography handy and you are welcome to put in updates since you appear to be familiar with many aspects of this material. If you see the Cavett interview you will gain some reasons for why I used the word "anecdotal"; although the words are Hitchcock's, there is still the issue of him providing recollections from the crib when he was 3 months old. At best, it seems, we are supposed to guess that his mother told him this story when he was older and then he convivially repeated it for the Cavett audience. Separately, it would be interesting for me to see what version you suggest for the Hitchcock being "thick" school comments, since I recall instances in school where some students might be considered "thick" in the opinion of classmates but ended up with respect and high grades awarded by teachers. Generally, I agree with you that many of the details in Hitchcock's biography are interesting though it should be kept in mind that the article is at 130KB, which some would already consider on the long side. Opinions on Hitchcock's Roman Catholic background are also divided and somewhat speculative. Yes there were churches in his different films, yes a priest or minister appears here and there, but the secular reception seems to be the larger one as to the wide-ranging literature I have read. The Further Reading section in the Wikipedia biography for Hitchcock was trimmed during GA-review because of comments that it was too long, which sounds somewhat different from your comments above of needing more research sources. Let me know what you think of the rewrites in the early childhood section. Your section split for his Childhood section looks good. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In case it helps, Gordon (2008), one of the authors who discusses his Jesuit upbringing, writes about "Rohmer and Chabrol's ground-breaking studies of Hitchcock" that emphasized the religious influence.

I can find two: Éric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol (1957). Hitchcock. Paris: Editions Universaires, and Éric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol (1992) [1979]. Hitchcock: The First Forty-Four Films. Roundhouse Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1857100068

I don't know whether it would be worth trying to get hold of them. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked up the "boo" story in the Dick Cavett interview. He's just kidding around. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreement on the Cavett interview comment. The main article for the various themes associated with Hitchcock is at the main article at: Themes and plot devices in Hitchcock films. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, on which source do you base the word "brothel" in the sentence about "And There Was No Rainbow"? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That was a previous editor offering a short form for this line from the Hitchcock piece: "Listen to me. All you have to do is to go to one of the suburbs — say, Fulham — and keep your eyes open around the smart houses. When you have struck your fancy, just go up and... oh, well, you know what to say! Simply pass the time of day, etc," as an abridged reference to 'smart houses'. Here is a recent news report from that area: [2]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The story doesn't say or imply that he's looking for a brothel, and that news story from Fulham has nothing to do with this. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have better wording for that summary then you might want to try it. Its possible that the previous editor may have been sensitive to there being red-light districts in that area. If there is a way to improve that paragraph then possibly try it or let me know if there is an option. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There are mistakes in that section caused by sources not being understood or summarized properly. I'm pointing them out, so you need to change them. Please read "And There Was No Rainbow" and write a sentence or two summarizing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It is now shortened to a single sentence and I have removed the word brothel written by the previous editor. Since you may have a different viewpoint for the summary of that short piece, feel free to adjust the wording as needed. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's better, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: let me know how you'd prefer to proceed. I'm happy to point out issues and make suggestions, but it might make sense to fix one section before moving onto the next.

Which of the biographies have you read, by the way, and do they have images of him as a boy? We do have a free image of the blue plaque at his birthplace, File:Alfred Joseph Hitchcock (Waltham Forest Heritage).jpg, in case you'd like to use it. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this and your additional comments are of interest on this biography. You have added the 2008 Donald Spoto book to the article yesterday which is the top source for the subject of Hitchcock's leading ladies. Much of that review has been included in the The Girl film article which was adopted from Spoto's book. Regarding your question of the leading biographies for Hitchcock, everyone's standard choice after 1999 appears to be the 800-page PMcGilligan biography from 15 years ago. The others are often useful as to special topics and supplementary views. The recent short biography on Hitchcock by Michael Wood (academic) is also a worthwhile read for a more recent viewpoint. On the subject of early photographs, there are a number of images of him I have seen sporting a full head of hair when he was younger although no-one has brought any of them into the article for some reason. There are also a number of his wedding photographs with Alma from the 1920s when he also has his full head of hair in prominent display. My internet access is down tomorrow afternoon for the week-end holiday and I should be able to return by next Tuesday. Looking forward to your further comments. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@ManKnowsInfinity: thanks for the reply. Which of the biographies have you read? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

My Hitchcock library is fairly large and I have read not only the biographies but quite a few of the book-length studies on his individual films. Is there a particular preference you have since you appear to have access to the preferred PMcGilligan biography? If you have specific questions on either the biography books or the individual films then you can list them here and I can try to provide a useful comment as needed. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You've read all the biographies, including Adair? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear not to have read the Adair since you are apparently restricted to the limited views provided by Google books. You appear not to have read the 2015 Michael Wood monograph for the same reason. You appear not to have read the authoritative 800-page PM biography for the same reason. This is an important point for people who have these books and have read them, especially when people who do not have these books and have not read them make inquiries as if the limited views provided by Google books are just as good as reading the actual books. Having limited views provided by Google books of these titles is not as good as and is not a substitute for having the actual books. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Tippi Hedren

• ManKnowsInfinity, I've added a Tippi Hedren section myself, and expanded the early life section.

You added this sentence to the Hedren section, but I'm having difficulty understanding it, especially given what follows it: "Michael Wood in his 2015 biography of Hitchcock commented that the complex question of Hedren's allegations were at least in some part likely justified." (Note: "the complex question ... were at least" partly justified.) Can you clarify? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, can you give more precise page numbers for the material you've added from Wood? I can't find it in Wood. The parts of Wood I've read seem supportive of Hedren. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Page numbers are accurate and Michael Wood gives a sustained treatment. Since the page numbers are accurate, the edit is restored. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, the page range is 71–89, which is large, and it may differ between editions. Can you give more precise page numbers? For example, on which pages does he discuss Hedren's self-aggrandizement and the film Grace of Monaco? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the paragraph:

"Michael Wood in his 2015 biography of Hitchcock commented that the complex question of Hedren's allegations were at least in some part likely justified. In 2014, two years after the release of The Girl recounting Hedren's account, the film Grace of Monaco was released in which Grace Kelly is portrayed as showing enthusiasm for the opportunity to return to work with Hitchcock after a personal invitation from Hitchcock himself to participate in his next project. Another difficulty recounted, aside from Hedren not reporting the matter at the time it occurred, is her return to do a second film with Hitchcock after her statements about how poorly she felt the first experience had gone to then film Marnie. Wood also comments that part of Hedren's difficulty may have been related to a partial self-aggrandizement of her own acting skills when compared to other Hitchcock leading ladies such as Ingrid Bergman (3 films with Hitchcock) and Grace Kelly (also 3 films with Hitchcock), with Wood's further observation that Bergman and Kelly were two of the standout actresses distinguishing themselves above many of the other Hitchcock leading ladies."

References

Wood, Michael (2015). The Man Who Knew Too Much. New Harvest. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

If you are using something like Google Books to do keyword searches in your various references to Hitchcock books then be careful since you are usually limited to seeing only selected sections of the various books. A person who has the actual book in hand and has read the book has the full view of the book. I'll be happy to look up those references and quotes if you need them, but please be specific as to what part you want to see. The approach of Michael Wood is complex and I had thought you would be much more interested in the part where he states that he sees some veracity in Hedrin's basic claim. The part about Grace Kelly is also interesting since Hedrin is not in a Hitchcock world all by herself and comparing her to Kelly in a film that came out within a year or two of The Girl is notable and useful. I will return that part in a shortened from to your new version of the edit. Please keep it there until I have a chance to give you the quotations you wish to request, sometime early next week after the holiday weekend. Just list the quotations from the Wood book you would like to see. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity, I'm not requesting quotations. I'm asking for page numbers where Wood discusses Hedren's self-aggrandizement and the film Grace of Monaco. As you've added it today, you should be able to give me page numbers. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Noting here that I'm withdrawing from the peer review for now. The article needs a lot of work, and it probably makes more sense at this stage to discuss the issues on the talk page. So far I've rewritten and expanded "Early life: 1899–1918", tidied the next section called "Short stories", and added and fixed lots of references. I've also added a section about Tippi Hedren, although ideally that will be incorporated into a section about his representation of women. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a more detailed review at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock#Review (permalink). SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hitchcock-via-Weinstein

Another editor has entered this peer review by introducing herself by stating the importance of the recent Weinstein controversy in the context of Hitchcock and Hitchcock's biography. That editor then made a number of edits to the early biography sections based on what appear to be use of the keyword search feature of the Google books search engine and without the benefit of having the actual books. The edits in that section seem reasonably done. The other unrelated edit dealing with the posthumously made Hedren allegations about Hitchcock appear less useful and misplaced for several reasons. The new weekend edit appears as somewhat misplaced edit here and resembles a Hitchcock-via-Weinstein section which might belong elsewhere in Wikipedia but appears not to belong in the Hitchcock biography article here. The new weekend edit is posted below to see what other editors may feel about the new weekend edit based on three issues now listed.

In its current form, the Hitchcock-via-Weinstein edit was added over the holiday weekend under the title of "Hedren's allegations" and it appears to be redundant, undue, and duplicating material which was already covered in the closing section of this Hitchcock biography article. The new weekend edit is placed below for discussion since it appears in this biography article without any support on either the Talk page for the article or on this peer review page. There are multiple questionable issues with the form of the new weekend edit which might benefit from discussion and assessment prior to deciding on its status in this Wikipedia biography article for Hitchcock as a new edit, or, to decide if the new weekend edit might better be placed in the Wikipedia film article for The Girl which for the past five years has been the peer reviewed article dealing with the posthumous Hedren allegations. Since the Controversy section in The Girl film article at Wikipedia has existed for 5 years and is peer reviewed it seems a better place for this new weekend Hitchcock-via-Weinstein edit. There are three questionable issues with the new weekend edit listed here.

(1) The material in the new weekend edit is redundant and was already covered in the closing section of the Hitchcock biography article. There is no reason to cover it twice in this article.

(2) The material in the new weekend edit is undue. The material introduced is a posthumous claim against Hitchcock made many years after his death. The new weekend edit also contains material which is already substantially dealt with in the Controversy section of the Wikipedia film article for The Girl from 2012. The Girl is the peer reviewed film article where Wikipedia for the last five years has dealt with these posthumous Hedren allegations for half a decade. It is undue to include the new weekend edit here in the Hitchcock biography article when it may better be included as a part of the 5-years old existing article dealing with the Hedren allegations for the past half decade on Wikipedia.

(3) The closing section of the Hitchcock biography already covered and contained this Hedren allegation material adequately as a posthumous allegation against Hitchcock made well after his death. There is no reason to reduplicate material which was already adequately covered in this Hitchcock biography and which has had its own peer-reviewed main article on Wikipedia in the Controversy section of The Girl here on Wikipedia for the last five years.

This new weekend edit is posted here to see if other editors could provide comments or viewpoints on the best place to deal with and where to place (perhaps of the Wikipedia article for The Girl) these questionable parts of the new weekend edit introduced by another editor. The new weekend edit is included here below:

In 1973 Tippi Hedren, who played the lead in The Birds (1963) and Marnie (1964), said that she had stopped working with Hitchcock because he had become "too possessive and too demanding". Years later she told one of his biographers, Donald Spoto, that Hitchcock had harassed her, and in 2012 a BBC/HBO production, The Girl, depicted Hedren's experiences while filming The Birds. While filming the attack scenes, Hedren was placed in a caged room with live birds, so that some of the pecking at her was real. It took a week to film the scenes. Toward the end of the week, one leg of each bird was attached by string to her clothes, so that they were forced to stay close to her. She eventually collapsed after one bird cut her lower eyelid, and filming was halted on doctor's orders. Hitchcock apparently admitted to François Truffaut that he had gone too far with her.

Calling Hitchcock a misogynist, Hedren alleged in 2009 that Hitchcock had become obsessed with her. She said he constantly stared at her, whispered obscenities to her, tried to control her weight (he had potatoes delivered to her home), drove past her home at all hours, had her followed, and sent her wine and gifts accompanied by sometimes childish and emotional notes. He had a life mask made of her, had her handwriting analysed, and had a ramp built from his private office that led directly into her trailer. In February 1964, she alleged, he propositioned her sexually, and when she turned him down, he said he would ruin her. Thereafter he would not speak to her directly and referred to her only as "the girl". Hitchcock told John Russell Taylor that the reason he and Hedren had fallen out was that, when Hitchcock declined her request for time off, she had called him a "fat pig". He apparently announced at a press conference that Hedren was under an exclusive contract and that he would not lend her out to other studios, which, in Hedren's view, effectively ended her career.

Everyone on set had reportedly been aware of the tension. Rod Taylor and Diane Baker, who appeared in The Birds, said that Hitchcock had clearly wanted to isolate Hedren from the rest of the crew. When filming Marnie, Hitchcock told Robert Burks, the cinematographer, that the camera had to be placed as close as possible to Hedren while he filmed her face, and according to the screenwriter Evan Hunter, Hitchcock insisted that on filming Hedren's face during the rape scene; Spoto writes that the scene caused everyone on set "considerable discomfort". Eva Marie Saint, Doris Day and Kim Novak, who worked with Hitchcock, told the Daily Telegraph in 2012 that they did not share Hedren's opinion of him; Saint, who starred in North by Northwest (1959), said her experience with him had been "one of utter respect, warmth, friendliness and humour".

References

Notes

Possibly other editors have an opinion on these questions raised for the new weekend edit which has been deleted from the article and placed above for purposes of review and comment by other readers and editors of this peer review to determine consensus. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations

The following refers to this version.

• FAC reviewers expect to see locations.
• Ref 4 (Vanity Fair) has no author.
• Ref 7 (Dick Cavett show) needs more information (broadcaster, that it was an interview with H, and ideally a timestamp from YouTube even if you don't include a link).
• Ref 14 (biography.com), may not be an RS.
• Ref 22 and 25 (screenonline.org.uk), may not an RS, and these are identical refs.
• Ref 28 (filmstudies.info), may not be an RS.
• Ref 29 (NYT) has the wrong date.
• Ref 30 screeonline.org again.
• Ref 35, another website (sensesofcinema.com) and there's no need for it.
• Ref 29, another website (Alfredsplace.com).
• Ref 55 (Daily Mail) should be removed.
• Ref 58 another website (AvantGardeNow.com)
• Ref 61 (Poague 2011), the script says it doesn't point to a citation.
• Ref 76 another website and a dead link (Hollywood.com).
• Ref 79 (Post), not clear what this is.
• Ref 80 needs a full citation with timestamp.
• Ref 88 The History Channel is repeated.
• Ref 91 (sensesofcinema.com), needs a full citation and is it an RS?
• Ref 103 (TCM), needs a full citation.
• Ref 112 another website (criminalbrief.com).
• Ref 124 another website (mysterynet.com).
• Ref 127 another website (thepsychomovies.com), personal website?
• Ref 133 (webpronews.com), needs a full citation, but is it an RS?
• Ref 139 (Rotten Tomatoes), needs a full citation
• Ref 150 (NYT) missing The and needs a byline. Is there a need for this when you have the NYT report at ref 151?
• Ref 156 (YouTube video) needs a full citation, but is it needed? It supports the sentence: "Hitchcock returned several times to cinematic devices such as suspense."
• Ref 157 points to cherwell.org, but says borgus.com.
• Ref 161 (Hitchcock's Motifs), needs a full citation.
• Ref 161 (Who the Devil Made It), needs a full citation.
• Ref 163 (Roger Ebert), missing a byline.
• Ref 165 (Krohn 2003), the script says it doesn't point to a citation.
• Ref 173 (A Companion to Alfred Hitchcock), needs a full citation.
• Ref 174 (It's Only a Movie: Alfred Hitchcock A Personal Biography), needs a full citation.
• Ref 175 (The Art of Grace: On Moving Well Through Life), needs a full citation.
• Ref 180 another website (Walkoffame.com).
• Ref 187 (Roger Ebert), needs a byline.
• Ref 191, (The Guardian), needs a byline and the date is wrong.
• Ref 194 (The Daily Telegraph), needs a byline and there's no need to add publisher.
• Ref 195 (Variety, needs a byline.
• Ref 197 (Harry Ransom Center), needs a full citation.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'll try to start on this list of citation updates later today though things might tend to get slow over the holiday weekend probably until next Tuesday. Your new edit on Hedren seems to be missing some of the more recent comments both supporting and challenging the alleged behavior. You appear to have started separate threads of this subject matter here and the Hitchcock Talk page and I ask that you merge the separate threads together here on the peer review page currently in progress so that all the comments can be together in one place. Both Brian and Keith said that they plan to return sometime after the holiday weekend and they should be able to see all the comments in one place. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor and Ssven2: There are presently two threads open on this discussion dealing with Hitchcock which should be merged here on the peer review page. The other one is at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock dealing with Tippi Hedren. Brian and Keith D from the above discussion have said that they plan to return to this peer review page in the days after the holiday weekend, and they should be able to see all the comments in one place. Could either one of you help to merge the separate threads and add the correct redirects so that all the threads appear on this page here. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)