Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurence Olivier/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laurence Olivier[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Following the promotion of Ralph Richardson's and John Gielgud's articles to FA, this is a joint attempt by SchroCat and Tim riley to get the third of the great theatrical trinity up to gold star standard. We have broadly followed the layout of the earlier two articles (including absence of info-box, which we think adds little here). All comments gratefully received. SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 20:25, 14 January 2015[reply]

Image review

Changed this to the right link. We hope (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wuthering Heights Olivier and Oberon 1939.jpg
Listed as unidentified author. We hope (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. That's still more author information than our information template has. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK-I linked and copied from the source page at the link. See if that helps. We hope (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, good. We just needed to state explicitly that the author is not known. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that I'm not sure if the US had (or would have had) a different trailer. I'll drop this one and tag on commons - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now refurred and links are there. We hope (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks to you both for identifying and sorting these! From what I can see, we are now all covered on these: please let me know if I've missed any. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we all happy with the main image? The contrast between the green and white in the background and angle stance isn't perfect. File:Lord_Olivier_5_Allan_Warren.jpg might be a better one if cropped slightly with a pure white background. I would have expected a classic photo rather like File:Laurence_Olivier_-_1961_-_Boston.jpg though, although Light show uploaded that one so it's probably dubious! The colour one is probably of higher quality, but I think you know what I mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doc - missed your comment up here! I quite like the current one - it was something Tim and I discussed with a full gallery of images in front of us. It was something about the eyes on this one that made us plump for it in the end. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jimknut[edit]

  • Introduction: "He also worked in films throughout much of his career, and played more than fifty cinema roles." — "He also worked in films throughout much of his career, and played in more than fifty motion pictures."
    • "Motion pictures" seems alien to an English reader, I'd say. SchroCat, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree: it's a rather cumbersome term in any language, but certainly BrEng! - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction: "His later films for cinema included" — "His later films included" Jimknut (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is trying to distinguish between films made for the cinema and films made for television. Perhaps its import would be clear enough without the "cinema", though. Tim riley talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Just for fun) Hmmm, I noticed that the Donald Spoto biography is not included in the reference section. Gee, I wonder why. Jimknut (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite so. The term "reliable source" does not leap to mind in this connection. Tim riley talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Coleman (whose approach is solid and professional) is quite scathing on a few bits that Spotty throws in there! - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of openers from BB[edit]

As mentioned, my main comments will follow later, but here's a couple of initial points as I pack my trunk:

  • Maybe I'm wearing blinkers, but I don't see hatnote links to Olivier's filmography or other lists of roles. Surely these list exist, and should be linked here?
  • Shocking oversight! Now added. It's not the best page we could have, but I'm working on a replacement at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the report on Henry V I read that "John Betjeman played a key liaison role". So Betj was an actor, too? I don't remember seeing this part in the cast list, but I bet the old boy made the most of it.
  • An uncredited role as third spear carrier? Now clarified in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More (serious stuff) when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these two: enjoy your hols and we look forward to seeing the photos and your comments on your return. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very enjoyable indeed, I've been waiting for this one. Always thought highly of his acting, still do. Now to business.
  • SchroCat and I have agreed that each will deal with comments on the bits he's written. Hence the gaps, for now. You seem to be ahead of us in making some of the suggested changes, I see.
  • "He later confirmed the good impression made by his Brutus," Does this mean Terry saw him in these later parts, or just that he was brilliant in what are difficult roles?
I think so. It's a bit ambiguous as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Tim riley talk 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tour de force" thoughts on italics?
    • I had it in italics, but Chris the Speller, whom I asked to run his unwinking editorial eye over our prose, is of opinion that it's in enough Eng dictionaries not to need it. I could be persuaded otherwise. Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think of this as editorial discretion. Just ensuring you've thought about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the couple's son" simplify to "their son"
  • "it was best to keep Olivier and Leigh separate until their divorces came through" maybe "apart" for "separate"
  • "After the war had begun, Oliver's life was under threat from the Nazis and pro-German sympathisers. " I would delete "After the war had begun", it reads oddly and we know when we are. But may I ask why the dashing Olivier so offended them? Merely from acting in propaganda flicks? Was he too cultured, causing them to reach for their guns?
    • No idea! Unfortunately the sources don't make it too clear either: details relating to the security, but nothing on the reasons behind it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pranging aircraft" I'm sure the wartime slang is charming, but I suspect most readers will reach for the link. Is "crashing" too much of a bore?
  • "roles to be cast the other way about" roles to be reversed?
  • If you can spare the space, I'd like also to see a more positive review of Olivier's performance in Hamlet. There's room to differ, but in my view it's the finest Shakespeare-based movie ever made. If you can find something short and pithy.
    • "brilliant ... one of the masterpieces of the stage has been made into one of the greatest of films": the Daily Tel critic has come up with a good one, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " had been dismissed" purely a matter of style, but I'd be blunt and say "had been sacked".
    • Well they were, certainly, but in my prim British way I find "sacked" a bit slangy. SchroCat, what say you? Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are, of course good. I initially swapped it over, but on reflection I think dismissed is better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Olivier was thought by some critics to be under par in both his roles, and some suspected him of playing deliberately below his usual strength so that Leigh might receive more limelight." I think the sheer bulk of figures of speech is a bit over the top.
    • I struggled with the phrasing of this and will ponder how to make it smoother. Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now done, satisfactorily?
Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independent actor-manager, (1951–55)" why the comma when you don't use it elsewhere?
  • " Leigh's Lady Macbeth received mixed but generally polite notices,[180][182][183] although to the end of his life Olivier believed it to have been the best Lady Macbeth he ever saw." Helps to be mad going in, I dare say (no action required).
  • "decree nisi" I don't think decree should be italicised (for some reason Ko Ko's little list song keeps going through my head). Possibly a pipe to nisi prius?
  • Well, now I think nisi should be italicised, if only because my autocorrect gave me a heck of a battle before letting me type it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Jacobi and Anthony Hopkins." given that you have not mentioned Mr. Jacobi in almost thirty years, I suggest that you either relink or give full name. Not that there are too many Jacobis out there of note ...
  • " Olivier himself stayed firmly in place, and Tynan followed suit." possibly change the last two words to "also remained".
  • " to become a peer for services to the theatre" is it "be created a peer"?
  • "not get the necessary long insurance for larger parts" This could possibly use a bit more information.
  • If you feel the star would be copyright free, I'll be in LA before I fly to the UK and would be happy to photograph his star.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be splendid. You have freedom of panorama in the US, I think. I have your Feb dates in my diary. Tim riley talk
  • If there's time and sunlight enough, and if there's not someone sitting on it or something, I will do and upload and bring to your attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I be slightly cheeky and ask for one of John Barrymore, whose star was put in place in a slightly different location, bu on the same day as LO. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An address would be helpful for Google Maps purposes. I know that area of LA somewhat, but not perfectly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6667 Hollywood Blvd is the spot. If it's not possible, or too far away from the Olivier's one, then please don't trouble yourself. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt for those comments. As precise and nippy as one would hope for from someone coming in first wicket down - often the problem place in the England batting order. (En passant, Olivier was once bidden by C Aubrey Smith to play for the Hollywood Cricket Club and had to borrow a a pair of boots from Boris Karloff.) Tim riley talk 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks also from me: your thoughts and comments have been helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article and I shall be glad to contribute both by my comments and by gathering stars.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers[edit]

Thanks for taking on Olivier - obviously the encyclopedia should have an FA on him. I'm working my way through, making copy edits. I always find this referencing system difficult to use, and so I ignore the references, hoping that they are all right; I think that if this type of referencing were used widely, it would surely discourage any newbie from editing Wikipedia, and I am proof that it discourages some experienced users. Having said that, I am finding the article well written. So far, my only serious issue is that Olivier's tenure at the St. James's Theatre is only briefly mentioned. Can you add a sentence or two about what he produced there over his multi-year tenure as manager? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly do so, though given his admission how rotten a manager he was then I don't expect to find many hits. Tim riley talk 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. He really wasn't a great picker! Even the critical successes would have the audiences staying away in droves: I mean, Racine in French, Pirandello in Italian? Tim riley talk 12:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that several of the films for which he was nominated for BAFTA awards (but did not win) are not even mentioned in the article. Those are all my comments. I look forward to seeing this at FAC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Films are SchroCat's department (over to you, partner!) but on the BAFTA point I don't, for my own part, see much merit in mentioning near-misses. Thank you very much for your comments and your work on the main page. We certainly have FAC in mind, and already the comments we've received have helped us get nearer the desired quality. Tim riley talk 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see several have now been added before I got round to dealing with the substantive points raised in the last day or so. For what it's worth, I think there are too many now listed, especially those done en passant, but I'm not going to delete any of them, even though we have the films all shown on the filmog, and the awards shown on the awards page (and we refer to the awards in the relevant section here). - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

  • The list of his films in the lead feels overboard.
I must disagree with that one Crisco, given the extent of his film career I think it's a conservative amount, the others mentioned are for television. I wouldn't want to see anything cut from his main body of film work, although perhaps some of the TV ones might be trimmed by a few. I agree with the selection of feature films included and can't see a way you could remove any of those, all particularly notable, Carrie (a BAFTA nominated role) is the other one which might be mentioned I suppose.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a filmography, however. It is a biography. We have an article on the films and stage performances Olivier was in, which we can use instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare his actual filmography with the ones mentioned in the lede it is a very brief insight, one could mention Carrie, Khartoum, Battle of Britain and a number of others but we don't. Perhaps one or two of the TV films might be dropped though. We mention 9 feature films of Olivier's, P.S. Hoffman's mentions 14.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoffman didn't when I supported it – I really dislike the subsequent re-write. The filmography list is currently being re-written, so don't pay too much heed to the current one. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He actually had more films mentioned I think during the FAC, we trimmed some afterwards! Loeba and another editor seemed very keen on making the changes to PSH, I wasn't initially, so we compromised.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"really dislike"? Ouch. If you feel so strongly about it, I'm surprised you didn't say something either of the times that I pinged you for input. And Blofeld's right, the lead actually now mentions less titles than it did when you supported. Anyway... --Loeba (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version was well-written, giving a brief mention of the role as well as the film, and you got an impression of the wide range of roles PSH took on. The current version feels like there are more names mentioned because there is a block of blue links, which the eye tends to skim over, rather than take on board properly. I saw the ping, but was in the midst of a number of things IRL and completely forgot to look in later, to be honest, not that I felt like pushing the point one way or the other. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You surely can't see "a block of blue" as such a problem when the Olivier lead, para 3, currently mentions 14 titles in a row without any expansion..! Not trying to start an argument or anything, but you can see how that looks a bit hypocritical. Anyway, let's move on. --Loeba (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any need to call me a hypocrite, but yes, I think we should move on from this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for overlinking; Sybil Thorndike is overlinked here, and I'm sure there are others
  • There were a couple - now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Esmond was predominantly lesbian; this was socially unacceptable in her lifetime, and was rarely mentioned. - Interesting how her article doesn't actually mention this, and only has LGBT in the categories.
  • Noël also did a priceless thing, he taught me not to giggle on the stage. - Comma in the original?
    • I know what you mean, but a comma it certainly is in the source. Tim riley talk 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mdash or ndash; standardise
  • I think we're all OK on this point now, unless you have spotted some rogue ones in there...? - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comparing it with his co-star's mastery of the poetry - compare or contrast here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Miss Leigh and Mr Olivier are handsome young people they hardly act their parts at all - Any missing punctuation?
  • Oscar nominations for the film, including Best Picture and Best Actor, but it won neither - is "neither" appropriate? Including suggests that there were more than two, but neither only applies to the two.
  • Link any of the characters, like Falstaff?
  • I'll spin through and try and catch these where appropriate - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olivier directed his third Shakespeare film in September 1954, Richard III, released in 1955, which he co-produced with Korda. - that's a lot of clauses
  • Olivier was nominated for the Best Actor Academy Award, which Yul Brynner won, but Olivier won a BAFTA award for the role. - feels like BAFTA first would work better.
  • increasing ill health - increasingly ill health, I think; ill is being modified
  • The sections Honours and Awards etc. are rather proseline-y
  • As per Tim's comment below, we'll look at the bottom sections of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've cited Ayliff several times thusfar; think he's worth an article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure on the last point: I'll have a look. As always Crisco 1492, a very large thanks for your excellent comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.[edit]

Lead
  • It might be a good thing to try to highlight some more of his really notable stage roles to be more informative to the reader. I know that's difficult to do so without bloating it, but it would look a better overall balance with his film and TV coverage with some examples I think. The problem though is that it's already a sizable paragraph and would probably end up bloating it. Can you try to squeeze a mention of one or two more stage roles into it though?
  • "Among Olivier's films are Wuthering Heights (1939), Rebecca (1940), and a trilogy of Shakespeare films as actor-director: Henry V (1944), Hamlet (1948), and Richard III (1955), His -is a fullstop intended here rather than a comma?
Early life
  • "Gerard's father Henry Arnold Olivier was a clergyman, but his other sons all achieved success in secular spheres: " -the "but", comma and colon here I find jarring.
    • I had difficulty drafting this, and will look again at it. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gerard practised extremely high church, Ritualist Christianity, and liked to be addressed as "Father Olivier". This made him unacceptable to most Anglican congregations,[3] and the only church posts he was offered were temporary, usually deputising for regular incumbents in their absence." Seems a bit superfluous, can it be shortened to a sentence perhaps?
    • I think this is important enough in LO's background to be worth the two sentences. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)illustrat[reply]
      • It's the "liked to be addressed as "Father Olivier"" part which seems trivial and unremarkable, although I can see why you might think it a good example of his father's personality. Wouldn't it read better simply as something like "Gerard practised extremely high church, Ritualist Christianity, which was unacceptable to most Anglican congregations. As a result, the church posts he was offered were temporary, usually deputising for regular incumbents in their absence." ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could live with that, though as a middle-of-the-road Anglican myself I feel mentioning "Father Olivier" illustrates how frightfully High Church he was - so high you need oxygen, as the saying goes. I can remember my own astonishment and slight alarm in the mid-1960s on meeting an Anglican priest who styled himself "Father". Tim riley talk 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rising star
  • "both realised they had made a mistake. Olivier later recorded that the marriage was "a pretty crass mistake." -rep of "mistake"
  • They have now erred. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Horne: Can you help me? I've erred? Sandy: We've all 'eard - it's common knowledge, innit, Jule? [Sorry about this]
  • "In 1930 Noël Coward cast Olivier as Victor Prynne in his new play Private Lives, which opened in London in September." -which theatre was this?
    • The Phoenix, but it wasn't a particularly important theatre in LO's career, and not worth singling out, I think. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's somebody as prominent as Coward I think mentioning the theatre is useful in that instance. I agree with what you say below about not mentioning it in every instance, but I think for this particular one it seems useful, especially as it seems the role played a part in interest in Hollywood unless I'm mistaken.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not wholly persuaded, but done anyway. Tim riley talk 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1931 RKO Pictures offered Olivier a two-film contract at $1,000 a week" . Seems a big jump here. Was it Coward that got him into Hollywood? Had a film boss seen him on stage somewhere? Something seems to be missing.
  • To quote the source, at the start of the para: "Meanwhile, RKO had spotted Larry and offered him two pictures ..." So no backstory to it I'm afraid! (I'll check the other sources to see if there is anything useful in any of them. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more by way of how the offer came about, but info about discussing it with Coward, and a decent quote, to boot. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"RKO had spotted Larry and offered him two pictures" -it would seem an RKO exec saw him on stage and noted him, I have read that Hollywood film execs frequently visited London looking for fresh new talent. I had thought that perhaps Larry was keen on breaking into Hollywood and had asked Coward to ask one of his contacts. A pity that there's nothing more on that, never mind! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a British journalist in a Russia under martial law" -is "a" Russia intentional here?
  • Yes: it could (if you force it slightly) be the journalist who is under ML in Russia, rather than the whole country. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Westward Passage -add (1932) or "in 1932"
  • "Olivier's stage roles in 1934 included Bothwell in Gordon Daviot's Queen of Scots," -where was this?
    • As above, I'm not keen on mentioning all the theatres as a matter of course. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but fiercely criticised his speaking of Shakespeare's verse, comparing it with his co-star's mastery of the poetry" -contrasting might work better than comparing here given that they were polarised opinions.
    • Entirely agree, and changed half an hour ago at Crisco's similar suggestion, above. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Old Vic
  • "Ivor Brown praised Olivier's "magnetism and muscularity" " -might add something very brief of Brown's background and who he was, was it in a paper he wrote that?
  • "Henry V was the next play. " -seems a bit too short and listy, can you reword into the sentence after it? Also some indication of the month of some of these plays started might help the reader.
  • "begun an affair sometime that year.[75][76] Of the affair," -rep of affair
  • "and evidently had a homosexual fling" -why evidently? Seems like you're trying to hide something here!
    • Well, the letters, which have not been published are said to strongly suggest an affair, but there is no conclusive evidence. "Evidently" is as firm as we are entitled to go, I think. Tim riley talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would a footnote mentioning the letter and no conclusive evidence be unreasonable do you think? It's the "evidently" part which raises my interest and wanted to know why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, and we already have one. Tim riley talk 15:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree: the sources couch it in careul terms, never saying that "this is what happened", but are slightly more careful in what theysay. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elsingor" -the correct formal name is Helsingør I believe if you're referring to Denmark and "the castle" you're referring to from what I gather is Kronborg Castle?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfectly true, but I suspect it would nonplus most readers familiar with the play. Sticking to Shakespeare's "Elsinore" seems safest, but I could be persuaded otherwise. SchroCat, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree: lets keep the common names that won't trip people up - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should be linked correctly at least and the castle probably linked too, Danish or English spelling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Olivier and Leigh took a tour of Europe in the summer of 1937 they returned to separate film projects—A Yank at Oxford for her and The Divorce of Lady X for him—although they moved into a property together." -"—although " grates on me here, I don't think it belongs in the same sentence. Something about the property, at least location, might help the reader.
  • Swapped for "and", and added location. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a negative quote for 1938's Othello for neutrality purposes?
    • Don't follow you. There isn't a positive quote to be balanced. The production fell a bit flat, and we've said so. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood
  • "In late 1938 he travelled to Hollywood" -what changed his mind, the bait of $50,000? You might mention "lured" or something if so because you previously indicate he hated Hollywood and was highly disillusioned with it. Something like "In late 1938, lured by a salary of $50,000, he travelled to Hollywood "
Yep, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebecca really is a landmark film worthy of some background info on his character/plot and a bit more on production I think.
  • "The war in Europe had been under way for a year and was going badly for Britain. After his wedding Olivier wanted to help the war effort. He called Duff Cooper, the Minister of Information under Winston Churchill, hoping to get a position in Cooper's department. " -reads a little too much like a narrative.
  • BFI -did you earlier put this in brackets after British Film Institute for our lesser informed readers?
  • Should the Royal Air Force be linked or does it fall under the broader ones advised against at MOS?
  • I thinks it's a well known enough, but I could be persuaded otherwise if you disagree... - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He intended to join the Royal Air Force, but instead he made " -"he" is repeated here, intentional? "but decided instead to make another propaganda film, 49th Parallel" I think might read a bit better
  • "took a cottage" -settled in a?
  • "who helps build British-Russian relationships" -you make it sound as if he actually built it from brick or something as you state he was an engineer hehe, "helps improve Anglo-Soviet relations" or something like that perhaps?
Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps move the short "The film was released in November 1944. " to the end of the first sentence as "eventually released in November 1944". If you'd rather not for chronological reasons though, no worries.
  • I'd rather keep it where it is, as it s pertinent to the following sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes probably better in that order actually, although a bit short.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Henry V really be split into separate paragraphs? I almost didn't see the content underneath! Is it really essential to mention the music? Seems more like the interest of the writer rather than what the general reader might expect.
    • I suspect SchroCat may have mentioned Walton to please me, who wrote his FA. Though it is true that LO (and WW!) felt that without this score the film would have been a failure. SchroCat, if you agree with the Doc I shall not repine. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against it as such, but I'm not sure it is really essential. In places a bit of background info though I think improves the readability, so your choice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Co-directing
  • "but the former declined, saying, "It would be a disaster, you would have to spend your whole time as referee between Larry and me."" -seems to contradict what you said earlier about the relationship only being prickly on Larry's side. That seems to indicate otherwise.
    • There wasn't a prickly bone in Gielgud's body, but he recognised the difficulty of working with Olivier, as was amply confirmed at Stratford later. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Lord Esher have an article or a fuller name? If he's missing I'll start it later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pity. I rather like the red link here and in Ralph Richardson's article to show what a nonentity the little twerp was. He has no ODNB or Who Was Who article, which speaks volumes. I don't think he merits a Wikipedia article except perhaps as Upper Class Twit of the Year. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not worth an article then why is he red linked?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, the third Viscount Esher (who I gather is the Lord Esher in the article) does have an entry in Who Was Who (see "Esher, 3rd Viscount", Who Was Who, A & C Black, etc., 2014, online ed., April 2014).
Well, well! Don't know how I missed that, and thank you, Noswall, for that touch on the tiller. Tim riley talk 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His father, grandfather and son all have articles, and you can bet your boots that someone who sleeps with Debrett under his pillow will write one before long. Tim riley talk 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add (1948) after Hamlet.
  • De-link Ceylon/Sri Lanka
  • Sure? I think there will be a fair few people who don't equate Ceylon with the SL. Hapy to swap out if you still disagree - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps place Sri Lanka in brackets instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As LO didn't bother to refer to it in his autobiography, I didn't see much point in it either (especially for an award he didn't win, but I see Ssilvers has dropped in something. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LO didn't think much of his films in general though did he given what Tim said? He'd have probably scoffed at Carrie. It's still a notable film and role though, William Wyler was one of the greatest directors of all time. Just a brief mention is worth it I think as is now in place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, except that he mentions other films (including a couple of less noticable ones for which he didn't lose an award!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, which ones specifically? Admittedly I'm very director oriented, it's very difficult for me to ignore a film by the director of masterpieces like Roman Holiday, The Letter, Ben Hur, Dodsworth, Mrs. Miniver, The Children's Hour etc! He had worked with Wyler earlier in Wuthering Heights though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1953 Leigh travelled to Ceylon to film Elephant Walk with Peter Finch. Shortly after filming started she suffered a breakdown, and returned to Britain where, between periods of incoherence, she told Olivier that she was in love with Finch, and had been having an affair with him.[168] she gradually recovered over a period of several months. As a result of the breakdown, many of the Oliviers' friends learned of her problems. Niven said she had been "quite, quite mad",[169] and in his diary, Coward expressed the view that "things had been bad and getting worse since 1948 or thereabouts."[170]" -whose biography is this? Perhaps find a way to trim it, even if largely relevant, I know Leigh's outbursts and behaviour were important in his life.
  • I think I'd rather leave this as it is, unless others say otherwise. Yes, it refers to Leigh, but they were married, and Olivier had to deal with the consequences. The breakdown(s) and infidelity both led to the divorce court eventually, so I think we need to cover it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the previous version of the article, Doc, you will see how much stuff about VL rather than LO we have stripped out. I think we have the balance about right in our redraft. Tim riley talk 15:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the Coronation season of 1953, Olivier and Leigh starred in the West End in Terence Rattigan's Ruritanian comedy, The Sleeping Prince. " -what theatre?
  • Elephant Walk and Richard III should have the year of release in brackets I think to avoid confusion of year of filming and release.
  • I have with Richard, but nt with Elephant: the film (and release) are the less important bits, as Leigh wasn't in the final version, so the key point is the 1953 date of her breakdown. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead of appearing with Leigh, he cast Marilyn Monroe as the showgirl. Although the filming was challenging because of Monroe's behaviour," -that's where I'd love to read a bit of his conflict with Monroe which I find interesting, I know it's been well-documented, although I think it was I who added some of the details in the film article a while back. Perhaps a sentence or two on production and some anecdotes briefly here would improve the pleasure of reading if you know what I mean.
  • I think that would mean that we would just have a list of examples of problematic behaviour by Monroe, rather than anything that helps us understand Olivier? There are some of the details on the film's article, should anyone wish to see. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but I was thinking of something basic like "Instead of appearing with Leigh, he cast Marilyn Monroe as the showgirl. Production was marred with difficulties due to the behaviour of Monroe, and at one point, Olivier ordered her acting coach off the set, leading to Monroe's refusal to continue." Other than that you could add a footnote after "challenging" and add a basic summary of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Royal court
  • "he production was chiefly remarkable for the star's quarrels with the director, Orson Welles, who according to the biographer Francis Beckett suffered the "appalling treatment" that Olivier had inflicted on Gielgud at Stratford five years earlier.[201]" -again here something brief about the nature of the conflict I'd find most interesting and informative.
  • No mention of working with Stanley Kubrick? How dare you :-)
  • OK - now added a quick reference! - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't his son an actor or something? No article?
  • I think he was in a handful of things as a child in the 1940s, but not much else. He refers to himsel as a producer, I think, but I'm not sure what he's actually done! - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National Theatre
  • "In 1966 his one play as director was Juno and the Paycock." -perhaps mention some of the actors he directed.
    • It was cast from the regular company with no outside stars, as the majority of his NT presentations were. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should elaborate a bit on the role in Khartoum and mention something about his costume/makeup and character and perhaps a review. It was a role quite different from many I think. He must have spent hours in makeup every day to resemble an Arab, is there something brief on that perhaps?
  • Not that different in many ways to Othello...? - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed: there were then and later some snide comments to the effect that LO had just recycled his Moor, though I think that's not actually correct, as he played Othello as a black sub-Saharan African rather than as an Arabic type. Still, one sees what they meant. Tim riley talk 15:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1968-74
  • Sleuth I really think could use something to make the reader understand more about the actual confrontation in the film between Olivier and Caine and the nature of the plot and his role. I've seen a lot of films and that one still stands out among most for its battle of wits and quirkiness, something anyway which helps the reader to really grasp that in few words would help.
  • But we're not trying to make them understand the film: that's for the film article. We're trying to understand Olivier and his life, which I think we cover. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to help the reader understand his acting and the nature of his roles too. Can you just mention something like, "which pitted him against Michael Caine in a battle of wits" or something, that would be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later years
  • "he made a series of advertisements for Polaroid cameras" -what period exactly was this?
  • Add (1976) after Marathon Man?
  • "n 1975 he won another Emmy for Love Among the Ruins.[205] The following year he appeared in adaptations of Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Harold Pinter's The Collection.[257][258] In 1978 he appeared in the film, "- reads a bit too much like a list here.
  • Nazi hunter linked but no earlier link with Nazi before torturer?
  • Rather like the RAF, I think Nazi is well known enough not to be (happy to be overruled by consensus tho), but not necessari;y Nazi hunter, which is less known. -SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to be said about his death and funeral?
Honours
  • This section seems a bit scruffy looking, not keen on the sub headers and the award sub headers and main article link jutting out from the image. I usually feel more comfortable reading about awards last, but I can see that you've got some fitting quotes to end with reputation.
    • Let's see if others share your reservations and we'll change if they do. It looks OK to me, but I'll go with the consensus, natch. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I was going at with my comment above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • Rather than reading as a tribute to his greatness here, I think if you could balance it out with some scholarly analysis of his actual acting style and way of delivery and reword it as "Acting style and reception" it would read a lot better. Especially for somebody like Olivier you'd expect some real understanding displayed of his mannerisms and range of work, much like in the Hoffman article. I usually find a lot of quotes using Template:Quote as a bit unsightly to read, in fact it rather reminds me of Light show's preference for writing hehe :-). I think there is a way to reword the section so it looks like regular prose with keeping in the quotes and balancing it out with acting style coverage.
    • I strongly disagree: the point about "Reputation" is that it says what people thought of him, and using their own words is best for this. We could have a separate section on "Acting technique" but (i) we haven't got one in the FA Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud articles, and (ii) it would be entirely beyond my (or I suspect anyone's) competence to analyse LO's technique. The format for this section follows our pattern for the earlier FAs. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You strongly disagree that covering his acting technique isn't appropriate too? It's not essential, but neither is reputation I guess. I think some scholarly commentary on his acting work can only help it, just a suggestion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would absolutely be appropriate, but, as I say, impossible, in my view. One could mention that he liked to work from the outside in - finding an appearance, a walk, a face, a voice, and then finding the character to inhabit them, but so do many other actors and I don't think that begins to show why he was the great actor he was. He got very ratty when accused of being all technique and no soul, and was right to be ratty, I think. I understand your suggestion, but I just don't think we can deliver on it. Tim riley talk 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's some fine sources out there like this which could further improve the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We must agree to differ about this. That article doesn't seem to me to explain LO's unique qualities any more than any other source I have seen. We got Sir Ralph and Sir John to FA without a vain effort to analyse how they worked their magic, and Sir Laurence, me judice, should also be let off the impossible attempt. Tim riley talk 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall excellent job. My only criticism is that I think that some of his notable film roles are often dismissed in a sentence and I'd like to see a bit more depth and understanding displayed of what these roles were and something to improve the actual understanding of the films and his film career. I get the impression reading it that there is no love for his film work, and while primarily a stage actor, I do think it can be elaborated on in parts to provide a better overall balance. Hope my comments help!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some really excellent points there, Doctor, thank you. On your last point, Olivier rather despised the cinema, but it subsidised his not especially well paid stage work. We mention a much higher percentage of his film roles than we do of his stage roles: we have to be sternly selective, but I am now poaching SchroCat's shots and will shut up forthwith. Tim riley talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that has to be taken into account, but for some of the roles I still believe I have a point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Doc, A few points left to mull over, but all good grist to the mill. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments[edit]

Hi guys, I noticed this on Blofeld's contributions yesterday and couldn't resist commenting :) I'm so glad you've taken this article on, and it looks like you've done an excellent job on the biographical stuff. But I immediately noticed that the "Reputation" section feels pretty rushed and insubstantial. For someone as major as Olivier, I'd definitely expect more. I mean, his name and status in the acting world is basically the same as, say, Beethoven or Bach in the music world. If one of their articles turned up at FAC without a decent discussion of their style and legacy, it would be challenged as lacking comprehensiveness. It's becoming standard/expected for actor articles - especially important actors - to have such sections. Indeed, Schrocat, you've written a ton of actor FAs and looking at them, they all seem to have good analytical sections: Peter_Sellers#Technique and Peter_Sellers#Legacy, John_Le_Mesurier#Approach_to_acting, Terry-Thomas#Screen_persona_and_technique and Terry-Thomas#Legacy_and_reputation, Hattie_Jacques#Reputation, George_Formby#Screen_persona_and_technique and George_Formby#Legacy, George_Formby Snr#Screen_persona_and_technique and George_Formby Snr#Legacy, John_Barrymore#Legacy. Tim - your Ralph Richarsdon article (Ralph_Richardson#Character_and_reputation) has more depth in this area than Olivier's currently does, and he's not such a big name. So Olivier should absolutely have more, along the lines of the above examples (I especially think Terry-Thomas's sections look good). They are usually the most interesting part of an article, and the bit that casual browsers are most likely to read, I think...so it would be a shame if Olivier's article was lacking. Hope you don't mind my butting in, but I couldn't ignore the compulsion to comment about this. Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, let us ponder this. I'm travelling all day tomorrow, but let us confer a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think it germane to point out that there are mixed messages here though, referring to a "technique" section (extremely difficult and limited with LO), and a larger reputation section, which are what most of the links above are. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, I'm away from home and bookshelves till Sunday, but have jotted down some initial thoughts on the talk page of this review. You may like to consider. If have been too cryptic anywhere don't hesitate to award a yellow card. Tim riley talk 21:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now added a few hundred words on technique. Tim riley talk 12:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now, well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "He also worked in films throughout much of his career, and played more than fifty cinema roles." This initially confused me as "and" implies two different things. How about "career, playing more"?
  • "His concern to speak naturally and avoid what he called "singing" Shakespeare's verse was the cause of much frustration in his early career, with critics regularly decrying his delivery." This reads a bit awkwardly. Maybe commas after "naturally" and "verse".
  • "Esmond was predominantly lesbian; this was socially unacceptable in her lifetime, and was rarely mentioned." Interesting that the version in Esmond's own article is different, citing a letter to their son saying she loved him into old age.
  • Yes, there is nothing mentioned about it at all - it's one of several omissions in there! - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and evidently had a homosexual fling with the actor Henry Ainley." "evidently" is a weasel word - I would delete it.
  • Deliberately chosen, but only because the sources pull their punches on this as well, none of them stating it as a fact, but more as a "quite likely" scenario - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an invitation from the Danish authorities" What does "Danish authorities" mean? Government? Owners of Elsinore?
  • "Olivier and Leigh told their respective spouses about the affair, ending their marriages" According to the Esmond article she already knew and only agreed to a divorce when Olivier asked for one.
  • I'm not sure there is a problem here: L&O told their spouses before it became known to the newspapers (I seem to remember from the sources). I'll dig out the books and clarify the situation. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Esmond article "Esmond withstood the publicity of Olivier's affair with Vivien Leigh and did not seek a divorce." This puts a different slant on it - if that article has got it right of course. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy we have the right chronology here based on this; we are certainly better than the Esmond article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the director, William Wyler, was a hard taskmaster, Olivier learned to remove "the carapace of theatricality" to which he was prone," "Although" seems a non-sequitur. Also I had the impression you were saying that he was criticised for not being theatrical enough.
  • "Richardson had gained a reputation for crashing aircraft, which Olivier rapidly eclipsed." Olivier had a reputation for crashing aircraft? It sounds drastic. Is anything more known about this?
  • We initially had "pranging", which would also cover the equivalent of reversing into another car in a car park - i.e. ground based collisions while taxiing, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Streetcar Named Desire, with Leigh in the central role of Blanche DuBois. The play was condemned by most critics," The play or the production?
  • "he played the earlier scenes like a Jewish hairdresser, with a lisp and an extraordinary accent" No change needed, but it is remarkable that such an anti-Semitic remark was considered acceptable as late as 1979.
  • I think the article says that he was a pacifist, but later wanted to join the RAF. I think this - I assume - change in views should be covered.
  • Another fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Dudley, some great comments for us to work on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thanks from me, too. All very much ad rem. Tim riley talk 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also is often redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, I've weeded a couple out and will go through again - I think this is probably more in my parts of the text than Tims. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A late contribution from BB[edit]

Some trivial points, a few of which might be worth taking up:

  • "throughout much of" seems vaguely contradictory. "Throughout" is wholly inclusive, "much of" excludes some. Just a thought.
  • "started out on" → "begun"
  • Comma required after Thorndike, as it was only Ellen Terry who wrote in her diary
  • You should give the date/year when LO started at Central School, rather than leaving this to inference
  • The birth of Tarquin in 1936 is recorded out of chronology, for no particular reason I can see
  • "...evidently had a homosexual fling with the actor Henry Ainley". I'm not too happy with "evidently", which with its hint of scepticism creates an air of uncertainty. Better to say "according to...", which at least fixes the source.
  • "took a tour of Europe" → "made a tour of Europe"?
  • The words "according to Billington" (1st para, Hollywood and the Second World War section) should be repositioned to cover both quotations in the sentence.
  • Semicolon watch (pot versus kettle): I did notice a number of cases where a sentence break might have been more appropriate. e.g. first sentence in last para of the "Last years with Leigh" section.
  • Clarify that Term of Trial was a feature film not a TV programme
  • "For the first time he began to suffer from stage fright..." – does "he" refer to Olivier or Redgrave?
  • "In 1983 he played his last Shakespearean role in King Lear..." Presumably he played Lear, thus "as King Lear" would be clearer
  • Possibly mention that Olivier's role (and those of Gielgud and Richardson) in Wagner was a small cameo.
  • "twenty two" → "twenty-two"?
  • "From academic and other institutions, Olivier received honorary doctorates from the Universities of Tufts, MA (1946) Oxford (1957) and Edinburgh (1964)." The use of MA meaning Massachusetts, in a sentence dealing with honorary academic awards, is a mite confusing – it threw me for a while. Maybe spell out the state?
  • "in Hall's words" and "in Bragg's words" in the last line jars slightly

Nothing else. Superb article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Brian. As always your thoughts and comments are hugely useful and benficial. Pretty much all covered, but I'll spin through and see if I can blitz any more semi colons. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thanks, too Brian. Most grateful for your eagle eye and helpful suggestions. Tim riley talk 17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing the PR: many thanks to all who took part from both of us, cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Laurence_Olivier/archive3&oldid=1144456820"