Talk:The Mountain Eagle

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Smarojit (talk · contribs) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Will be reviewing it in the next couple of days. --smarojit ^HD 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work Dr. Blofeld. Especially wonderful is the hilarious production section. Couldn't find much to nitpick on other than two small points:

• Why are a number of lost films (along with their description) mentioned in the final paragraph of the article? It doesn't have much relevance to the film itself.

I'm a film buff. It being a lost film, I thought it would interest readers (myself included) and link to other articles on very notable missing films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. --smarojit ^HD 11:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog , François Truffaut and Kentucky are over-linked.

Done I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than this, I don't see why this cannot be a GA! :) --smarojit ^HD 02:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--smarojit ^HD 11:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Smaro!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky

J.L. Kuhns did some exhaustive research for an article on the film which appeared in the Hitchcock Annual (1998). He states that it was film critic Peter Noble who first made the claim the film (in his 1949 "An Index to the Creative Work of Alfred Hitchcock" article for Sight and Sound) was set in Kentucky by misinterpreting a statement Hitchcock made about the original draft script being set there. He says he found no evidence to support Noble's assumption that Hitchcock intended the film itself to be set in Kentucky and none of the original trade journal synopses make that claim (in fact, the review in The Bioscope implies a European setting for the film). Other writers (e.g. Spoto) appear to have assumed Noble had seen the film and repeated the Kentucky location, but Kuhns felt that it was unlikely that Noble had seen the film and that he'd based his own synopsis on the one that appeared in The Bioscope. Given Kuhns' research, it would seem appropriate for Wikipedia not to continue Noble's unsubstantiated claim that the film is set in Kentucky. Unless someone objects strongly, I'll edit the article soon to remove the Kentucky references. As a side note, Noble made a surprising number of errors in his summaries of Hitchcock films and was responsible for the erroneous claim that Nita Naldi appeared at "the native girl" in The Pleasure Garden. Davepattern (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)