Wikipedia:Peer review/John Gielgud/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Gielgud[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Along with Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud dominated the British stage for several decades of the 20th century. As Richardson's article has recently been promoted to FA, it seems right to try to do the same for his great colleague. Gielgud was primarily a stage actor in his first four decades as a performer, and did not take the cinema seriously until he was in his sixties. He worked in radio from the 1920s onwards, but came late to television. He was also much in demand as a director in the West End and on Broadway. I'd be glad of comments on whether I have adequately reflected the balance of the various facets of his career. And glad, too, of comments on prose, omissions, digressions or anything else. The article has much better images now than when I began a month ago, thanks to marvellous input from Loeba and Crisco 1492, and will shortly contain contains links to a comprehensive list of all Gielgud's roles on stage, screen and radio recently created by SchroCat, which is currently a was promoted to featured list on 24 March. Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Easily the best Gielgud biography on the net! High time this fellow had a working over IMO. Here are my efforts...

Early years

  • "The family tree included a famous Polish actress and actor, Aniela Aszpergerowa and her husband Wojciech." -- Who was the "famous Polish actress" you tease? If they were that famous, would they be worth a mention?
    • The famous actress was Aniela Aszpergerowa. I have redrawn to make it clearer. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His wife, an actress until her marriage, was a member of the stage dynasty..." -- I know you and I have plans, but is there a current Gielgud stage dynasty article we could link to?
    • Well there is (here) but it's pretty dreadful and I'm loth to encourage people to click out of this article into such a poor page. When we have our Terry family article up and running it will be another matter. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So as to differentiate between London (which we have spoken lots about) and Surrey which we now introduce, could we link Surrey for the visiting outsiders to the article so they don't think they're the same? Us country bumpkins would hate to be thought of as townies! ;)
  • "Both parents were keen theatregoers, but the idea of a stage career was not encouraged." -- For Gielgud presumably and not by persons intending for his parents?

First acting experience

  • In the third para, why do we repeat ref [27] in close succession?
    • Good question. I think I was dithering about whether to leave the sentence in about the short run of the piece. On further consideration, perhaps it should go. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – good stuff. Looking forward to more. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After continuing to read, I notice that most of the other issues have now been covered by Cliftonian. Nice work Tim! Cassiantotalk 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cliftonian[edit]

Know nothing about Gielgud apart from that he went to my school and that a swan was named after him in Adrian Mole. So will be interested to learn something actually relevant to the man himself.

Lead

  • "was an English actor and theatre director, whose career spanned eight decades." don't think you need the comma here
  • "He was a member of the theatrical dynasty the Terry family, and gained his first paid acting work as a junior member of Phyllis Neilson-Terry's company in 1922." would recommend rephrasing slightly to "From the theatrical Terry family dynasty, he gained his first paid acting work as a junior member of Phyllis Neilson-Terry's company in 1922."
    • That has a slightly journalistic feel to the construction, though I can't quite say why. I'll leave it as it, for now. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • I sang in the same choir when I was a kiddy—nice memories
  • "His father took the young Gielgud to concerts" since this is at the start of a paragraph I would recommend rephrasing to "The young Gielgud's father took him to concerts"

First acting experience

  • "and spoke it badly" in his own opinion, or someone else's? I would imagine the former.

West End

  • "He had a partner for the first time" Seems like rather anachronistic terminology, frankly, and it took me a second to realise exactly what we were meaning to say. I appreciate the awkwardness of wording this but I would be astonished if either Gielgud or Perry ever referred to the other as his "partner" (except perhaps if they were playing tennis or bridge). I would consider perhaps instead making reference to Gielgud having his "first serious relationship" or something like that.

Old Vic

  • "in an unfashionable area of London, south of the Thames," not sure you need the comma here
  • "for the 1931–31 season" typo

West End star

  • "The Good Companions adapted for the stage" would put a comma in here
  • missing full stop at the end of note 7
    • Done. Another thank-you for your sharp eyes. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Theatre company

  • "Gielgud invested £5,000 – most of his earnings" I think a comma would do just as well here

War and post-war

  • note 11: "unfit to fight". I'm not sure about this wording; surely even if Gielgud was unfit for combat, he could have served in a non-combatant role? (There are countless). Unless this is exactly what it says in the source material, I would recommend changing to "unfit for service" or something like that.
  • "He returned to filming in 1940, as Disraeli in Thorold Dickinson's The Prime Minister. This morale-boosting film required him to age from thirty to seventy," But wasn't he actually 36 at the time?
    • Redrawn to clarify that it was the character Disraeli not the actor who so aged. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ENSA" we haven't introduced the Entertainments National Service Association
  • We didn't wikilink the Haymarket

1950s – film success and personal disaster

  • "attitude to homosexuality" not "attitude towards homosexuality"?
  • perhaps wikilink Chelsea, also do we know where exactly he was arrested?
    • Linked. I haven't seen a more specific location than Chelsea mentioned. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 13 has no reference, though I'm sure it's correct. I would also move it to the end of the sentence. (if the information therein is in the reference at the end of the sentence, perhaps put the reference inside the note)

1960s

  • "the two remained partners" again this issue with the word "partner"; this might just be restricted to me but I really do find this wording seems rather out of place. I would prefer "the two remained together" or something like that
  • We haven't wikilinked Oscar (the award) yet in the body
  • "neither production was satisfactory" according to whom?

1970s – Indian summer

  • rem wikilink to Chelsea here (we should link above instead)

Later years

  • "one performance he almost forgot them, momentarily distracted by seeing in a 1938 copy of The Times, read by his character, a review of his own portrayal of Vershinin in Three Sisters fifty years earlier." Good Lord!
  • "Peter Greenaway's radical adaptation of The Tempest" What exactly made it radical?
  • I think this last use of "partner" is acceptable as the term is conceivably relevant by 1999
  • "more than an occupation or a profession; for me it has been a life" Great note to end on.

Notes and references, etc

  • All looks okay to me

Sterling work as usual from Tim. Even as somebody with basically no prior knowledge, I found it interesting and enjoyable, and wonderfully well-written and engaging. The comments above are mostly just nitpicks. I enjoyed the article very much and found very little to quibble about. Thank you Tim for expanding my horizons somewhat with this fine theatrical piece, and well done. I hope these notes I made as I went through help. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent input, thank you Cliftonian. I shall enjoy going through it over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous stuff. Thank you so much. All taken on board except as mentioned above. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, as always a pleasure. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim posted on my talk page asking about the arrangements for Westminster School services in the neighbouring Abbey. I cannot comment with certainty exactly how things would have been arranged in Gielgud's time but when I was there about a decade ago all students regardless of religious affiliation attended mandatory Anglican services, simply called "Abbey", on Monday and Friday mornings. Even in my time these were rather impressive. Members of the school choir (like me!) sat in special seats in the centre and got to sing all the descants and so on. There were also services on or near the main Christian holidays but I seem to remember these were not mandatory and were not commonly attended by day-boys such as Gielgud (I believe at the time these might have been actually called "dayboarders" but this may have been before Gielgud's time). Many Westminsters have their confirmation in the Abbey and friends come to watch this as well. We also had a Latin Prayers service each Wednesday, and I seem to recall that these were once also on Saturdays—yes, we went to school six days a week—but these were not in the Abbey but "Up School", in the old original school hall. We had to say these in this bizarre-sounding special pronunciation we were told was "Westminster Latin" dating back to the school's genesis. I imagine this would also have appealed to Gielgud. Incidentally somebody has surreptitiously recorded Ad Te Levavi and Pater Noster and put them up on YouTube if any of you want an idea of what these Latin Prayers are like. I hope this is helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cliftonian. Not only helpful but enchanting! It is now clear how it was that though young Gielgud wasn't in the choir stalls in cassock and surplice he was nonetheless a regular contributor at Abbey services. The biographers are vague on the matter, and once again Wikipedia comes to the rescue, with insider information. Tim riley (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco[edit]

  • in the early 1930s. ... During the 1930s – repetitive
  • long career, - long feels redundant to the first paragraph
  • convicted and fined for a homosexual offence - suggest linking "homosexual offence" to LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
    • Not sure that's the right article, if any, to link to here. Shall ponder. Have linked to it in the text, though, as you suggest below. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was out of sympathy with the avant garde plays that began to supersede traditional West End productions in the 1950s, - perhaps this is a britishism, but what does "He was out of sympathy" mean?
    • Gosh! Very surprised to learn that it's not idiomatic outside the UK. Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating Oscar three times in one paragraph feels a bit unbalanced
  • Do Honours, character and reputation and the sections after it belong in Life and career or their own sections? Otherwise I'd simply make all of the subsections as sections, and the sub-subsections as subsections
    • Yes, the Honours section is meant to be top level header, as in the Ralph Richardson article, which I'm using as a template. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • their sister Eleanor became Gielgud's secretary for many years. - considering how many Gielguds there are in this sentence, I would not be surprised if there was a misunderstanding here.
  • who was also on the stage. - possibly ambiguous, although clear from the context IMHO
    • On reflection we don't need him at all, and I've expunged him. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kate - is this Gielgud's mother, or a different Kate Terry? Or were the Terrys and Terry Lewises (Terry-Lewises? Which was their preferred spelling?) different clans?
  • only three miles - I think you're supposed to include a metric count as well
  • When he went on as understudy in a leading role he had mixed fortunes; a colleague, recognising that the young man had talent but lacked technique, recommended him to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA). Gielgud was awarded a scholarship to the academy, and trained there throughout 1923 under Kenneth Barnes, Helen Haye and Claude Rains. - I think having a semi-colon here implies that the second sentence is Gielgud's mixed fortune, something I don't think really holds true here.
    • Removed the first bit: not central to the narrative. What happened was that he went on one night and was excellent but went on again the next night and lost it. His older colleague realised that this was down to lack of technique rather than lack of talent, and hence his suggestion of RADA. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the emperor in Androcles and the Lion - Earlier you had the Herald, now the emperor. May need to standardise
  • A couple places feel more like prosified lists than actual prose.
    • I've pruned a bit, and will go through again before FAC to cut more if I can. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howard's production opened in November; it was, in Gielgud's words, a débâcle, and the "battle of the Hamlets" heralded in the New York press was over almost as soon as it had begun. - may need to be explicit as to who the victor was — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a link to LGBT rights in the United Kingdom may help (in the body)
  • Big Fish, Little Fish - How do we not have an article on this? I mean, if it garnered a Tony it's certainly notable.
  • middle 1960s - is mid-1960s preferable?
  • 'Oh, you beast. You've come all over my umbrella!' - *raised eyebrow*
    • Well, it made me laugh, and also illustrated that despite the voice of an angel, JG's sense of humour was far from angelic. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarify why Gielgud stopped directing?
    • I really don't know. He had long given up setting up his own productions, and it may be simply that nobody asked him. Or perhaps in his early seventies he wanted to concentrate on acting. The sources don't say. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • RADA - considering how long it's been since you spelled it out, you may want to have the full name here.
  • as he wrote at the close of An Actor and his Time (1979) - year in the original? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Crisco, for these comments. All very much to the point, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Lead:

  • "as an exponent of Shakespeare in the early 1930s. During the 1930s": Repetition across the paragraph break
  • "He was regarded by many, including the critic James Agate, as the finest Hamlet of his era": Mentioning Agate specifically in the lead is a bit jarring, as it leads to the reader asking "Why is his opinion so important?" Could he be cut from the sentence?
    • Done. I hope this doesn't invite a {{who}} tag though. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He made occasional films": The pedant in me wonders what an occasional film is? Would "occasionally made films" be better? But I'm not sure it sounds better.
  • And could that film comment be moved to the last paragraph of the lead, which is about his films?
  • "Between Becket in 1964, for which he was nominated for an Oscar": Is there a way to avoid "for...for"?
  • "Gielgud was famous from his early days for his voice and his mastery of Shakespearean verse": his...his...his
    • Blitzed one, but I want to keep the other two, I think. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years:

  • I wonder about the naming of this section, as the first paragraphs are about his family history.
  • "In 1912, aged eight, Gielgud, like his elder brothers, went to Hillside preparatory school in Surrey.": Perhaps a slight comma overload in this sentence?

Down to end of "West End" so far, and enjoying this hugely. More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Vic:

  • " invited Gielgud join the company in the 1929–30 season": Should this be "for the 1929–30 season"? And is there a way to avoid giving "1929" and "1929–30" in the same sentence?
  • "It was, in Morley's words, the place to learn Shakespearian technique and try new ideas": Unless the quotation marks have gone AWOL, these aren't Morley's words!
    • Well they are, but it looks a bit lumpy with quote marks, and I think my wording makes it clear that this is what Morley said. Not adamant on this point, though. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exceptionally for the time, Williams's production gave the text without the traditional cuts.": Lost me a little here.
    • Yes. Sorry: it wasn't very clear. Now redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up to end of "West End star"... Sarastro1 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And now to the end of the war section. My only comment on these sections is that perhaps the lists of performances do become a bit list-y in places, and I wonder if there is a way around it? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Crisco has commented similarly. I've trimmed a bit and will go through carefully before FAC to see what else I can trim. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950s:

  • "His cold, unsympathetic Angelo in Peter Brook's production of Measure for Measure (1950) showed the public a new, naturalistic manner in his playing, and he had great successes as Cassius in Julius Caesar, King Lear and, in London, again with Brook, Leontes in The Winter's Tale.": Quite a long sentence, and the commas make it a little hard to follow.
  • "For four months...": Makes me feel like I'm stuttering!
  • Do we need intext attribution for the long Huggett quote? Also, I'm possibly being dim but it does not seem quite clear to me at which performance or venue this took place. But I'm maybe being dim; it wouldn't be the first time!

Honours, character and reputation:

  • Just looking at the article on Ralph Richardson, which some chap wrote, I wonder if this section should be a level 2 section, like in Richardson.
  • Also in comparison to the Richardson article, this section feels a little light. Richardson seems to have more "critical commentary" and more personality. Having said that, I think Gielgud's personality radiates throughout this article, to the point where some of his opinions are laugh-out-loud funny. So the latter point may be moot.
    • Yes, I agree. I'll beef up this section. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • My only other thought is if we need to make it clearer how famous he was. It comes through, but should it be made a little more explicit? Otherwise, the balance looks pretty much spot on to me. Other than the section I mention above, the story bounces along quite merrily and I read the last parts in one session, without intending to.
    • Interesting point about his eminence. I hate quotes and citations in a lead, so will have to ponder how to convey this without provoking challenge. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it from me for the moment. Another excellent piece of work which I think requires loud and sustained applause. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in your debt for this thorough and helpful input. Thank you very much, Sarastro. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Loeba[edit]

I'm greatly enjoying reading through this! Brilliantly put together, Tim. Some humble suggestions...

Lead
  • It would be nice if the first paragraph in the lead did a bit more to communicate how important/respected JG is (if there's any part of the article people are going to read, it's that!) You may disagree though.
    • No, I think you're right. I've added to the opening para. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • We aren't told when he became "John" - was he always called by his middle name?
    • He was. As a little boy he was known as "Jack", but soon became "John" and was never "Arthur". Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think there's a way of comfortably mentioning this? --Loeba (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm never crazy about going into too much ancestral history - I rather feel like we could lose the mention of Anthony Gielgud and Aniela Aszpergerowa, for instance?
    • Pruned the General. I need to keep Aniela, though, as the quote box below would be a bit mystifying if she popped up there out of the blue. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First acting
  • I think it would be worth mentioning his age here, when he joined the drama school.
  • "actor-manager" I think that should be an en-dash? God, you know you've spent too much time on wikipedia when you can recognise a dash from an en-dash! "poet-butterfly" as well
    • I think it would be unusual, and indeed I think wrong, to use an en-dash rather than a hyphen here. I've just checked in the Oxford English Dictionary, which uses a hyphen, not an en-dash for "actor-manager". Not wholly surprisingly the OED has no entry for "poet-butterfly". Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NDASH says hyphens should be used to "join components" whereas en-dashes are used "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between"..."Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning". Looking at the list of examples, I think "actor–manager" would definitely fit. I'm not sure about "poet-butterfly" though - is the "poet" there to describe "butterfly", or are you essentially saying "poet and butterfly"? Gosh I never thought I'd be the type to get hung up on these things, haha. --Loeba (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha, I looked closely and this is a similar example and they say to use a hyphen: "a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Gosh, it's so fiddly and specific! --Loeba (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West End
  • "(or Trophimof in the translation used for the production)" - I would strike this as unneeded.
    • Yes, probably. I may have to unearth it if anyone starts getting didactic about some of my other old forms of Russian names, such as Tusenbach and Gaev, but will prune for now anyway. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We get the first mention of JG's homosexuality here - given the era, if would be interesting to know if he had any personal difficulties accepting his sexuality, if he kept it hidden from friends, etc. It might be best in the "character" section though; I'll leave it with you.
    • As far as I can recall the biographies don't say. JG was, naturally, reticent on the subject, but I don't get the impression he had any youthful angst about his sexuality. But I can't find anything citable on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Vic
  • "Gielgud was by no means the first West End star" - This feels a wee bit too much like biography talk, I'd prefer it more simple: "Gielgud was not the first West End star"
    • Yes, much better. What can I have been thinking of? Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams's production used the complete text of the play. This was regarded as a radical innovation;" - suggest "Williams's production used the complete text of the play, which was regarded as a radical innovation;"
    • But it was the use not the play that was the innovation, and I think that is clearer in the existing draft. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West End star
  • We don't get a link to the Good Companions film.
  • "and shining a penetrating, not always flattering, light on Richard's character" - Needed in this article?
  • Was the Romeo & Juliet production the first time he and Olivier met? He's kind of introduced as if they'd already worked together, but there's no mention of that...
    • gielgud had cast the young Olivier in a supporting role in Richard of Bordeaux in 1934, and recognising his talent he came up with the idea of sharing the roles of Mercutio and Romeo in 1935. Gielgud rescued Olivier's career to a great extent. Olivier's article in the ODNB says that before this he had appeared in a string of commercial flops, had flirted unrewardingly with Hollywood, and had largely avoided the classics. Worth adding this, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I definitely think at least the first part of this would be worth including, and then maybe the influence it had on Olivier's career could go in a footnote (or even in the main text, if done briefly). --Loeba (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did JG say anything about his experience working with Hitchcock? I think it would be interesting to hear if so, but then I may be in a minority, heh.
    • He didn't much like working for Hitchcock, who made him nervous, and the experience put him even more off filming. (Morley, pp. 130–131). Again, I can add if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me it seems worth adding - Hitch is obviously one of the biggest names in film history and people may want to know a little more about JG's experience working with him (and from your comment here it sounds like it had career resonance). If you don't think it's needed I won't insist though. --Loeba (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a sentence, which fits in all right, I think. Do you concur? Tim riley (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TBC --Loeba (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Thank you very much for your thoughts so far. I expect to have this peer review open for a week or two yet, so there's absolutely no rush for your next set of comments. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Queen's theatre company
  • So was his company called the "Queens Theatre company"? And did they exclusively perform at the Queen's Theatre? I think these things could be made clearer in the text.
    • Good questions. Yes to the second, and I don't think so to the first. I'll do a spot of rummaging in the press archives, which will be a good indicator. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1950s
  • "Gielgud was fined." - Hmm, I wasn't crazy about how abrupt this is. It would read better IMO "Gielgud was fined [amount?] and the story reported in the press. [sentence about fearing end of career]".
  • "Between December 1953 and June 1955 Gielgud concentrated on directing and did not appear on stage." - Was this because of the arrest? Might be worth elaborating on.
    • Truth to tell I don't know, and I think I am right in saying that the biographers simply record the facts and don’t speculate on his motives. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • Maybe the "film success" heading would fit better here than the earlier section? There actually wasn't much about films there but in this one he gets an Oscar nomination, and we're told that he starts to enjoy working in films more.

I was hoping to have time to finish but I'm afraid I don't - soon though! By the way, do you still want me to upload the Murder on the Orient Express image, or do you think there's not enough room? I'm still happy to do it if you like (sorry for taking ages to check about this!) --Loeba (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba, I place myself entirely in your hands on matters of images. If you think we can fit this one in without a squeeze then let's go for it. No rush whatever, let me emphasise. Many thanks for your points so far. I'll leave the PR open for another week or so, and if you have time to look in again I'll be very pleased. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just scanned over the rest of the article - I don't really have any complaints or suggestions, other than maybe indicating the success of Murder on the Orient Express, and the "Reputation" material is notably slimmer than that on Richardson's article(resting mostly on one individual's quote). It would be nice if it could be expanded, but it's also effective enough as it is and if no-one else has mentioned this than you're probably fine :) Really great work Tim, thanks for giving Gielgud such a top article! --Loeba (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssilvers[edit]

Lead

  • Lead did not cover the honours section, so I added some overview/summary info. Please review
    • Looks good to me. Thank you for that. (I hate writing leads and am not at all good at it.)

Background and early years:

First Acting experience:

  • Did he earn a degree from RADA? You simply say that he left in 1923.

Early West End roles:

  • The "widespread interest in Chekhov" -- does this mean in Britain or worldwide?
    • You mean they have theatres outside Britain? You're quite right, of course. I'll revise my parochial phrasing. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the word "plausible", which did not seem to add any value, but if it had a meaning, please clarify.
    • As I can't readily spot where it was before you blitzed it I think it safe to assume that we don't need it.

Old Vic:

  • Shakesperian is spelled also as Shakesperean. Should it be one or the other throughout (except perhaps in direct quotes)?
    • The value of PR! Thank you so much. I'll go through with unblinking editorial eye before FAC. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West End star

  • Should great-aunt (or great-anything) be hyphenated throughout? This is not the case in American usage, but I'm not sure about Br.
  • débâcle: I thought we were just writing "debacle" without the fancy foreign marks?
    • A borderline one, I think. I would say the word is still French rather than naturalised English, and Gielgud spells it with the aigu and circonflexe in the letter I allude to here. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Theatre company:

  • Which productions mentioned in this section were at the Queen's Theatre? Only one is specified.
    • Clarified. Glad you spotted that omission. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War and post-war

  • "Gielgud felt that something serious or even solemn was necessary for wartime London." Should we explain, at least in a note, that most wartime entertainment was light-hearted?
    • Interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that. You may well be right, and I'll look into it, and add a note if the records justify the statement. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950s:

  • Is "highly discreet" different from merely "discreet"?
    • There are degrees of discretion. I agree that adverbs should be used sparingly, but I think this one helps make the point that this was one hell of a lapse from his usual prudence. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1960s:

  • Can someone throw up a stub for Big Fish, Little Fish (play)?
    • Done. Crisco mentioned this earlier, and I reckon two to one is a strong working majority. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incredible. How did you do that so fast, so well? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're very kind. It helps that l live 20 minutes' walk from the British Library. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hensler (1932–99), a designer exiled from Hungary -- set or costumes, or interior design? Urban design?
    • I blush to say I don't know. I shall rummage and expand on the term if I can. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1969) were cameo appearances -- do we really mean cameo, or just character roles?
    • I think cameos is an accurate description of his other 1960s roles. Happy to be corrected if I have missed a more substantial one. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1970s:

  • Why is this called "Indian summer"? That seems to me to connote something unexpected in later years, while this seems to be rather business as usual for Gielgud....
    • It seemed to me (and I think the biographies confirm) that he got a bit becalmed in the late 1950s and the 60s, and had something of a fresh start with the new plays written for him in the 70s. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later years:

  • débâcle again?
    • Is it the spelling or the repeat appearance of the word that you are looking askance at?

Honours

  • President of RADA -- what were his duties? Was he simply a figurehead? We should clarify.
    • Yes, purely a figurehead. I'll clarify. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent biography, Tim, conveying the man's personality as well as his works and reputation. As always, please disregard anything you disagree with, and I hope you find this helpful. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some really excellent points there, and I'm very grateful. I shall enjoy going through them over the weekend. Meanwhile I've taken the hint and run up an article on Big Fish, Little Fish. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A few very minor points on what is a fantastic article:

Background

  • "Frank Gielgud married into a family with wide...": not sure we need the Gielgud name there again
    • I've tried it without the surname and it looks a bit odd to me. See what you think now.

West End Star

  • The New York Times, Charles Morgan wrote, "I have never before heard the rhythm and verse and the naturalness of speech so gently combined. ... If I see a better performance of this play than this before I die, it will be a miracle."[83] Morley writes" Why did "Charles Morgan wrote", and "Morley writes", as both of them have shuffled off this mortal coil...
    • Fair comment. I think it's that Morgan's words were in a paper, no longer on general access, whereas Morley's are in a book, widely available. I'm not sure I can defend the logic, but "X wrote in The Times" and "Y writes in his 2000 biography" both seem right somehow. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950s

  • "Gielgud was fined." This seems a bit short and blunt as it stands. Perhaps merging into the press sentence that follows?
    • Loeba has raised this point above. I'm pondering on how best to redraw. Truth to tell, I so hated writing this bit that I sprinted through it. Shall reconsider. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made one or two very tiny copy edits: please revert if you don't like or agree with them. All told a wonderful article and look forward to seeing it at FAC soon. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat, for excellent input. We've given the old boy our best efforts, with your comprehensive list of roles and this biographical page. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.[edit]

Apologies for the delay, I think you know the reason. Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "After study" -studying?
  • "and was also known in high comedy roles" -would known for be better here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely indifferent to awards, Gielgud had the rare distinction of winning an Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, and a Tony. " What is meant exactly by "largely indifferent" to awards? Do you mean that he detested them or he didn't win many aside from those?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was rather agin them. He won lots, and SchroCat's superb new page on Gielgud's roles and awards lists them. But he still had little time for the awards brouhaha. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Gielgud Theatre was named for him". -in what year?
    • 1996 – mentioned in the main text. Needed here? Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "Jan Gielgud took refuge in England with his family.[4] Frank Gielgud was one of his grandchildren. The family tree included a famous Polish actress, Aniela Aszpergerowa." -three short sentences, would be best rephrased and put in one or two I think for flow.
    • Agree, and will do.
  • "In class, he hated mathematics, was fair at classics and excelled at English and divinity." I'd put a comma after classics here.
  • "and, in the music halls, Albert Chevalier, Vesta Tilley and Marie Lloyd" -perhaps "and Albert Chevalier, Vesta Tilley and Marie Lloyd perform in the music halls" would read better?
  • "The young Gielgud's father took him to concerts, which he liked, and galleries and museums, "which bored me rigid."" -not sure why this is relevant.
    • Just to show his cultural upbringing. Worth keeping, I think. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First acting
  • "and in November 1921 he made his debut with a professional company, though he himself was not paid." -he himself, why not, "though he went unpaid"?
    • I think your suggested wording could be taken as implying that he ought to have been paid but wasn't. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he made his debut with a professional company, though he himself was not paid. He played the Herald in Henry V at the Old Vic; he had one line to speak and, he recalled, he spoke it badly.[22] He " -"He" repeats on me a lot in this section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Vic
  • "to offer plays and operas to a mostly working-class audience at low ticket prices." -looks a little OR without a citation I think.
West End
  • "Returning to the West End, Gielgud starred in J B Priestley's The Good Companions, adapted for the stage by the author and Edward Knoblock.[n 6" -do we know in what theatres he appeared in this role?
    • We do, but I have been taken to task above for being too "listy", and I'm trying to keep details of theatres to a minimum. Again, for those who want to know the new list of roles has the details.
  • "Unlike his contemporaries Richardson and Laurence Olivier he made few films, until after the Second World War," -comma looks misplaced here "Unlike his contemporaries Richardson and Laurence Olivier, he made few films until after the Second World War" would seem to look better.
    • Yes. Will do.
  • "by Elizabeth Mackintosh (who wrote under the pen name Gordon Daviot). " -perhaps best to place this in a footnote.
    • I dithered about what to call her/him. I think you may be right about footnoting it. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Romeo and Juliet" - a Romeo and Juliet?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Gielgud opened at the Empire Theatre " -can you add "of New York City" or "New York's Empire Theatre"
    • I think it's clear that this was in New York. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Queen's
  • Do we have a date for his return from America?
War
  • Link the The Heiress play? Saw the film the other day and enjoyed Ralph's performance!
    • Yes it should be linked. Incidentally, Richardson's film portrayal of Dr Sloper was before he played it on stage – rather unusual. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1950s
  • "His cold, unsympathetic Angelo in Peter Brook's production of Measure for Measure (1950) showed the public a new, naturalistic manner in his playing. " unsourced, should have a citation otherwise it makes it look as if you're claiming it which would be POV.
1980s
  • " Chariots of Fire (1981), Gandhi (1983)," you might want to write the Oscar-winning and link to Academy Award for Best Picture. Also I believe Gandhi was 1982 rather than 1983.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won an Oscar as supporting actor" -link "Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor"
  • "To mark his ninetieth birthday he played Lear for the last time; for the BBC Kenneth Branagh gathered a cast that included Judi Dench, Eileen Atkins and Emma Thompson as Lear's daughters, with eminent actors such as Bob Hoskins, Derek Jacobi and Simon Russell Beale in supporting roles." - I'd say that the actresses were eminent too, I'd move eminent to before cast and remove it before actors.
    • I think we can lose the eminence altogether, now I look again. The names speak for themselves. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pope Pius V -link?
    • I'm always a bit iffy about linking to articles about real people from articles in which they are mere dramatic characters. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gielgud died the following year, peacefully at home, at the age of 96. You may want to want date for quick reference.

A very enjoyable read. I know how difficult it is to adequately cover the career of such prolific actors who work in all mediums and I believe you've also done a good job providing the highlights of his film career. A little more film detail of his roles and costars etc in the 60s - 80s might be good but it's pretty good as it is. Great job on another very important actor. Look forward to seeing Olivier next. I last saw him in Sleuth (1972 film) and he really left me thinking "is this the finest actor I've ever seen".♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these excellent points, which I'll go away and attend to. You'll wait in vain for me to give Olivier's article an overhaul, I'm afraid. I considered it, but though the actor was superb I just can't get an handle on the human being. Meanwhile, I'm most grateful for your input on Sir John. – Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

With such a wealth of thoughtful comment already available, I doubt that you need my grumpy jet-lagged mumblings, but I am reading the article anyway. Just one point so far, from the lead: "he made more than sixty movies". First, "movie" is either informal or an Americanism – either way, it jars. Also, to say that he "made" more than 60 films is rather misleading. He appeared in more than 60 films, though more usually in very small (and frequently delightful) cameo roles, particularly towards the end of his career. So I think this wording should be revised. More drippings will follow, but if you want to cut the review short I will not be in any way offended. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, suntanned and rested I trust. Grumpy mumblings will be gladly received when you are good and ready. I don't expect to close this PR for a week or so. The g. m. above is wholly to the point and shall be attended to. Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of my comments
Background and early years
  • "After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, and Val had done the same at Rugby School..." – "to Eton" with "at Rugby" doesn't work too well, and replacing "at" with "to" reads even worse. I have struggled with this, and come up with "After Hillside, Lewis and Val had won scholarships, respectively to Eton and Rugby..."
    • Yes, good. Will do.
  • I assume he was a member of the choir that sang in the Abbey, but you don't say so.
    • He certainly attended many services, but whether as a young member of the congregation or in the choir stalls the sources don't say, unless I've missed it. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First acting experience
  • "J B Fagan": As you may know, there has been a recent furore over the formatting of initials in proper names. All I will say is that MOS states explicitly: "An initial should be followed by a full stop and a non-breaking space". (MOS:ABBR#Initials)
    • Good old MoS! As ever, full of mutually contradictory advice. We are also exhorted to use the most familiar forms of names etc, and full stops after initials went out of general use from the early 1970s in these islands. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering why The Wheel is given its author, but The Admirable Crichton and The Insect Play aren't? Is there a policy at work here?
    • No, sheer incompetence. I'll add authors. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early West End roles
  • "The success of The Cherry Orchard led to a sudden, widespread interest in Chekhov. There was what one paper called a "Chekhov boom", and Gielgud was among its leading players." May I suggest a contraction: "The success of The Cherry Orchard led to what one theatre critic called a "Chekhov boom", and Gielgud was among its leading players."
  • "ecstatic reviews" – OTT?
    • Will change to "enthusiastic"
  • "Dean, a notorious bully" – such characterisations should be specifically attributed
    • Yes. Will do. All too easy to find a citation, unfortunately. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Vic
  • "Richardson's notices, and the relationship of the two leading men, improved markedly when Gielgud, who was playing Prospero, helped Richardson with his performance as Caliban in The Tempest:" For clarity, I think The Tempest needs to be be mentioned earlier in the sentence, e.g. "Richardson's notices, and the relationship of the two leading men, improved markedly when Gielgud, who was playing Prospero in The Tempest, helped Richardson with his performance as Caliban:"
    • Will do. I think I copied and pasted this from the Richardson article, which I'll revisit too! Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West End star
  • Perhaps say who the then 22-year-old Devine was, rather than relying on the link?
    • Good idea. Will do.
  • "extremely satisfactory" – beware the weasel superlative!
    • I suppose you're right, but I mean…! Still, I'll amend. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...fiercely criticised his speaking of Shakespeare's verse, comparing it with his co-star's mastery of the poetry." Hmm, this is not a particularly accurate summary of the Farjeon quote; nothing "fierce" there, and countered by praise for "the fire of Mr Olivier's passion". Maybe other critics were harder on Olivier?
    • Much harder. The Farjeon quote is from a review after the two men switched roles. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "ecstatic"? Is this Morley's term? If so, this should be clear.
  • "...starring on Broadway for the first time" – I seem to recall that he had appeared on Broadway before (perhaps not in a starring role)?
Queen's Theatre company
  • "Gielgud invested £5,000..." etc: More information requested: what form did this investment take? Did he lease a theatre (the Queen's, presumably)? If so, for how long? Did he close the venture after just the one season? The first sentence of the third paragraph suggests that he did, but I see that he was playing at the Queens in 1939, with Edith Evans. Was this production under the auspices of Gielgud's Queen's Theatre company?
    • Will flesh out. He did indeed take the Queen's for the one season. His later appearances there were for Binkie Beaumont. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
War and post-war
  • The "Father Christmas/Colonial Bishop" quote ought to be attributed.
    • Will do.
  • "During this tour he played Hamlet on stage for the last time." – did he subsequently play it via a different medium?
    • Radio and gramophone versions. Never on film, alas. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First mention of The Heiress could do with a little description
  • "directing and playing Thomas Mendip" - awkward wording (he didn't direct Thomas Mendip).
1950s – film success and personal crisis
  • The Way of the World should have an author, as per Venice Preserv'd
  • (aside): on the issue of his arrest, etc, I remember reading somewhere that the press was extraordinarily discreet in its reportage. No screaming headlines, one paper even describing Gielgud as a "clerk". Yet at almost the same time Lord Montagu was being mercilessly pursued on similar charges. I can only imagine that the oafish Maxwell Fyfe had never heard of Gielgud, and didn't think him worth pursuing.
1960s
  • You might think it worth footnoting that Gielgud's mansion at Wooton Underwood was subsequently acquired by T. Blair
    • I didn't know, and am not all that delighted to learn it. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. my comment on the lead, the word "movie" once again intrudes awkwardly (on several wincing occasions)
    • Right ho. Shall amend passim
  • As I recall, Gielgud had only a tiny part in The Loved One. He was King Henry IV in The Chimes at Midnight. Are either of these factlets worth mentioning?
  • "...but has since been recognised as "one of the best, albeit most eccentric, of all Shakespearean movies." Recognised as such by whom?
  • "One potentially outstanding acting role fell through in 1967 when Olivier, with whom he was to co-star at the National Theatre in Ibsen's The Pretenders, was ill." This is a little cryptic. What role are we talking about, and why did it fall through since it was Olivier who was ill?
    • The idea was for them to co-star and Olivier to direct. Without him the production was abandoned. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1970s – Indian summer
  • On first mention, "Maugham" should be "Somerset Maugham"
  • "Hall found the play "extremely funny and also extremely bleak." Who is "Hall"?
    • He is mentioned in the previous sentence. Near enough, I think, to make the unadorned surname all right.
Later years
  • King Priam in Hamlet: I think this warrants at least a footnote in explanation, as Priam is not a character in the play. A bit of Branagh add-on, I presume.
Honours, character and reputation
  • No comments
Lists of roles and awards
  • I am a little uneasy about sections that contain no text other than a link elsewhere. A simple introductory couple of sentences, drawn from the lead of the "list" article, would do admirably.
  • Given the links at the head of each section that lead to the various sections of his career, would moving this link into the "Honours, character and reputation" section just above it work? - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more of a list than I anticipated, though mostly minor niggles, suggestions or side comments. All told, an excellent portrait of Gielgud, whom I remember chiefly in his later cameo roles, e.g. Charles Ryder's father in Brideshead and the raffish Downs in Summer's Lease, each of which I am delighted to see gets a mention. Excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad I stayed for the grumpy mumbling encore. Some really helpful points in there, and I am greatly indebted. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Sorry about the wait, it slipped my mind. Here's what I have. We have a master writer to begin with and this peer review's well-turned ground, so perhaps it is not surprising it is not much. Wonderful article, and I always greatly enjoyed his work.

Lede
  • "avant garde plays". A link might be helpful
First acting
  • You say he was invited to tour the provinces in 1922. You might want to make it clear he actually did so, perhaps with some small details of the itinerary.
    • Dammit! It's so easy to fall into that trap about "invited". Will amend. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Don't go near him/Don't go near him/He is swearing/He is swearing!"--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West End *
  • "Edith Evans as the nurse". I have more commonly seen "nurse" capitalised. Your call.
    • Yes, I think capitalised is usual. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Queen's Theatre company
  • "but nor did it make much" I'm not certain the "but" works.
War
  • "but he found at first that less highbrow performers like Beatrice Lillie were better than he at entertaining the troops" perhaps it can be less elegantly but more bluntly stated that the troops were, in general, more attuned to less cerebral performances.
    • I'm not sure it was just that, though it certainly was partly so. I think at first he was not good at getting his stuff across. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1950s
  • "He never spoke publicly about the affair" perhaps, "incident".
    • Yes. Much better. The word had been slightly troubling me since I originally wrote it. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "avant-garde". In thé lede, you italicise and do not use a dash.
    • Good grief! Thanks again. I'll rationalise. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in a larger role" cut as redundant. The first role (which to my horror, I don't clearly remember) is described as a cameo, and a role described as "Mr Barrett" in a play with that name entitled, is unlikely to be small.
    • Will do. The scene with Coward is a delight. JG is the valet sacked by Fogg for getting his bathwater to the wrong temperature. Coward is the snooty proprietor of the employment agency through which JG's character was engaged. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I remember it! I had fallen back on my recollection of the book, in which the valet, Foster, has, I believe, only one speaking line.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to keep him before the American public: he had not been to the US since his arrest four years earlier" Did he describe it in terms of his arrest? Since what's before the colon is clearly what Gielgud is stating, I see no reason not to assume what's after the colon is also from him. But given what you've said previously about his not discussing it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean. He said in terms that it was to keep himself before the American public, but the historical context is my own addition. I'll recast. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranevskaya of Ashcroft he had the best of the notices; Ashcroft and the production received mixed reviews" Perhaps the second Ashcroft could be changed to avoid the double usage. "his co-star" or some such.
Footnotes
  • "At first he was briefly a boarder," I find "At first" perhaps unneeded, the sequence of events seems quite clear without it.
That's all I have. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these points. A lot of really useful suggestions, for which I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, sorry for the oversight in getting to it so late. Glad it was helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report[edit]

I'm away from home till next Wednesday, and can't complete all the outstanding actions I promised above till I get back to my bookshelves. Meanwhile, I am enormously indebted to the unprecedently ritzy roster of peer reviewers who have helped me with this article. I have just done a quick check and I see that (in alphabetical order) Brianboulton, Cassianto, Cliftonian, Crisco, Dr B, Loeba, Sarastro, SchroCat, Ssilvers and Wehwalt, the peer reviewers here have between them, at current count, a total of 259 Featured Articles to their credit. Was ever an article peer-reviewed by so many star Wikipedians? Thank you all! I expect to be at FAC in April and will be knocking at your doors. – Tim riley (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/John_Gielgud/archive1&oldid=1144453187"