Wikipedia:Peer review/Ralph Richardson/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ralph Richardson[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I saw Ralph Richardson on stage several times when I was a young man, and I thought him magical. He deserves the very best article WP can provide, and I have done my utmost to that end. Comments are invited on anything at all, but I'd be particularly glad of comments on these points:

  • Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?
  • The quote boxes are, frankly, in lieu of usable pictures. Comments welcome on pictures I could legitimately use. And should all quote boxes be the same background colour or ought I to introduce a bit of variety?
  • Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?
  • Have I given enough coverage to his films?
  • Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?
  • Order of sections: should "Reputation" come before (as now) or after "Radio etc"? (Content of these sections now moved to main text.)

*Radio etc - would the info here be better subsumed in the main text or is it helpful as a separate section? Ditto. All contributions on these or any other points will be gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Usual solid work.
With regard to images, have you checked in the Billy Rose collection at the New York Public Library, for pre-1978 programmes for plays in which Richardson featured from the US, perhaps The School for Scandal, that do not have a copyright notice? I regret not being able to check for you due to internet limitations for the moment (this is being composed offline), but we've found it very useful and mostly online and available in decent resolution, for the R&H articles.
Excellent tip. Shall follow up. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnotes are fine. I'm OK with mentioning the roles.
Specific comments, starting with lede
  • "From an artistic but not theatrical background, Richardson was unsure what career to pursue until a production of Hamlet in Brighton inspired him to become an actor." the "was unsure what career to pursue" feels like there should be a better phrasing, though I confess I could not come up with one to offer as an example. It's at an important enough point in the article that I at least suggest another look without specific suggestion.
    • Yes, I think you're right. I'll ponder and redraw. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph might benefit from avoiding the repetition of "learned".
  • "Old Vic company, with which his most celebrated roles included Peer Gynt" Hm, perhaps "Old Vic company. There, his most celebrated roles included Peer Gynt"
  • "Richardson's film career began as an extra in 1931" In view of the length and complexity of the filmography to follow, I'd make this a sentence on its own.
  • "from 1948 until posthumous awards for his final films" I am not sure that quite works. It certainly "feels" wrong to me, Perhaps "from 1948 until his death, and received posthumous awards for his final films" or some variant. Another matter is that you don't actually mention any posthumous awards, just posthumous award nominations.
    • I'll adopt your wording, and, ahem, will amend the sloppy drafting in re awards/nominations. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
  • "Richardson wrote to all four managers:" This sentence has two semicolons. I simply point it out.
    • I'll inspect my conscience and consider. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashcroft's notices were laudatory, while Richardson's were mixed, but they admired each other" not sure I see the reason for the "but". Surely whether there is mutual admiration is not dictated by the shortsightedness of the critics?
    • You home in unerringly on a sentence I was not quite happy with. I think I'll replace the conjunction with another semicolon. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • "but showed little ambition to recruit his former colleague" Possibly "little desire"?
1970s
  • The title of the play in the first sentence should be italicised.
  • "two more extrovert female patients" extroverted?
    • I think the shorter version is more usual. Perhaps a UK-v-US English thing. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • The parrot seems far more eccentric than Sir Ralph.
    • Certainly. It had (scout's honour!) its own pencils to chew, but preferred Sir Ralph's.
Film
  • The appearance in Time Bandits is mentioned earlier in the article.
    • Thanks for spotting that. Will amend. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellously helpful input. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I owe you several hundred reviews, so it's time to repay a few favours! This may take a couple of visits, but I'm finding very little wrong. No problem with the hat notes, but I wonder if the quote boxes could be a colour other than grey if we are to offset the lack of images. I've no preference regarding the infobox, and as far as I've got so far the roles are not boring. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. One colour or a variety, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think one. But I’m not sure about that blue background; it looks a bit garish to me. But that might just be me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone pastel instead. Very tasteful. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically:

  • ”He learned his craft in the 1920s … from whom he had learned much about stagecraft”: Fairly close almost-repetition of craft.
  • ”After leaving the Old Vic he had a series of roles leading to stardom in the West End and on Broadway”: I wonder would this be better written as something like “After leaving the Old Vic, a series of roles led him to stardom in the West End and on Broadway”. I also wonder should these roles be defined, for example as “leading roles”, or by naming a couple of them? Otherwise it is quite an abrupt jump to him working with Olivier as co-director.
    • Definitely. I hate writing leads and am not much good at it, and am always glad of suggested tweaks. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”He and Olivier led the company to Europe and Broadway in 1945 and 1946, before their success provoked resentment in official quarters in London, leading to their dismissal from the company in 1947.”: This reads a little strangely. What “official quarters”? I think we need to specify who/what this means.
    • Quite so. Perhaps some reference to "the Old Vic governors" would be clearer. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder should the lead be a little longer? For instance, there is nothing on his personal life or personality.
    • Excellent idea. Good material for a bit on his eccentric nature. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”He was an altar boy in Brighton, which he enjoyed,”: Brighton, or being an altar boy? I’m not sure there is an easy way to reword that, and also to make it clear that he was living in Brighton. We also have two Brightons in the same sentence.
    • I smiled at that. I'll nail the ambiguity and redraw to avoid duplicating Brighton if I can without strangulation of the prose. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The pay, ten shillings (50p) a week, was attractive”: I wonder if the 10p is useful. It would not be the equivalent value today, and many editors use those dreadful inflation templates for this sort of thing; this may confuse readers.
    • Fine with me, though I'll give you decent odds that some eager beaver will put the template in before the article is done at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”…as well as engaging in pranks that alarmed his superiors”: Could we have an example? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice idea. Will do. Looking forward to any more points at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest: A thoroughly enjoyable article. I planned to do the rest in two batches, but ended up reading to the end. The rest of my comments, which can be freely ignored if appropriate.

  • ”In 1933 he had his first speaking part in a film, playing the villain, Nigel Hartley, in The Ghoul, which starred Cedric Hardwicke and Boris Karloff.[48] The following year he had his first starring role in a film, as the hero in The Return of Bulldog Drummond.” Can we avoid the (relatively) close repetition of “he had”?
  • ”Esher terminated their contracts while both were out of the country”: Was any reason ever given, and what did they have to say about it? Did they go quietly? And as a matter of interest, what was said to them?
    • This occupies pages of the biographies. Reasons (largely spurious) were given by Esher. As far as I can see they were not technically fired: their running contracts were not renewed, but this is a bit technical for me to give you a definite answer. The top and bottom of it is that Esher and Guthrie were miffed at being eclipsed by Richardson and Olivier and wanted rid of them. This almost certainly delayed the creation of the National Theatre for at least a decade. The members of the triumvirate kept a dignified silence in public, as Olivier did again when effectively sacked from the National in the early 1970s. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”but the production was thought weakly directed”: A bit ambiguous. By the cast? The critics? The audiences?
  • The reputation section is not really about his reputation alone, but also his character. Maybe rename it “Reputation and character”?
    • I dithered about this when writing it. I think you're right. Will amend. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this should be a hagiography, but we seem to be a bit sparing in praise here. No-where (unless I’ve missed it) do we just plainly state that everyone thought he was a bloody good actor. In fact, the reputation section seems a bit harsh.
    • I hope not. I'll re-read with as objective an eye as I can, and add something suitable if need be. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards the end, I did flag a little with the lists of performances, etc, but only slightly. And to be honest, I don't see how else it could be done. I think they should be there for comprehensiveness, and it never becomes a plain list. It remains engagingly written.
  • Perhaps the only thing that would improve it for me is to explicitly state, at some points, how famous and/or well-regarded he was. For example, when did he become a household name. It is easy enough to work out from the splendidly written narrative, but I’m a lazy reader and I like someone to occasionally summarise what I’ve just read! Perhaps just a sentence here or there. Or perhaps not, if you’d prefer not. Make me work for it!
    • No, you're right. The reader shouldn't have to work for it. I'll see how I can cover this. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m slightly puzzled by the last section. Given that his film and TV careers are covered throughout, why do we have that section? If it is to summarise, why is there not a part in the same section on his theatrical work? I think having all the information in that last section, or having it all spread throughout, could possibly be better. But then it is possible that there is a very sensible reason for doing it this way, and I’ve spectacularly missed it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
    • It is, to be honest, a legacy from previous versions before I began my charge towards FAC. Cards on the table: I could weave the television and film into the narrative, and even the radio, but the gramophone recordings refuse to be shoehorned into the main text. Perhaps I should leave them on their own at the bottom and incorporate all the rest in the main narrative. What do you think??
      • Later: I've had a go. I think it works. See what you think. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's looking just about perfect to me. Pretty seamless. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this makes its way to FAC, and please come and shout at me if I've said anything stupid. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I come and shout, it will be shouts of "bravo". Some really fruitful stuff here, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changes looking good to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very pleased! Thank you for your suggestions, which have greatly improved the article. Tim riley (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Offhand I'd say remove the Ralph Richardson – roles from 1970 type links throughout (just once will do at the bottom of the page) which clutters it I think and maybe try to introduce some film critic reviews of his more notable roles. I understand he was primarily a stage actor, but he did have a notable film career and I'd expect to see a bit more coverage of his film work perhaps, with more written about the nature of his roles, what he did in preparation for some of them, roles he was offered and rejected, what directors/actor he worked with etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Doctor. Good point about reviews and RR's approach to the cinema. He was less high and mighty about film work than some other leading actors, and there is room for a few lines on his views. I shall enjoy writing them. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to conduct a more thorough review this coming week if you can keep this open for a few days longer, I also have The Tower House to peruse over and will let you know when it's been nommed! Here's a bit of trivia I betcha didn't know, Richardson, Sir Laurence and Enid Blyton shared the same accountant!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I didn't know that; all three of them were fairly clued-up about money, so a good accountant was most necessary. No rush at all for further comments. I closed the Hugh Walpole PR too soon, and regretted it; I'll not make the same mistake this time. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added quite a lot about his film work, some new stuff, some moved up from notes to main text, and some incorporated from the vestigial "Films" section inherited from previous revisions. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will read later on today and hopefully post some helpful comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • link British stage to Theatre of the United kingdom?
    • Good. Didn't know it was there. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He worked in films throughout most of his career, and played more than sixty cinema roles", why not simply "he starred in over 60 films throughout his career"?
    • That's certainly pithier, but I worry about saying he starred in all of them. Some were mere cameo roles. I'd be happy with "he appeared in over 60 films throughout his career". Is that preferable, do you think? – Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He learned his craft in the 1920s with a touring company and later the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, before joining the Old Vic, where he led the company in 1931, succeeding John Gielgud, who had taught him much about stage technique. " This is a bit heavy to read in one sentence, can you split into two or rephrase to reduce how many commas are in it?
  • "In the 1950s Richardson played in modern and classic works in the West End and occasionally on tour." is it worth mentioning some of the most notable ones during this period?
  • Yes I think you should definitely mention some of the most notable plays he starred in with the years in brackets like you've done with films. I understand he appeared in many plays, but it would be good to inform the reader of at least some of the most notable ones.
    • I worry (see my list of questions at the top of this page) that too many details of productions might become wearisome to the reader. Indeed, one reviewer here has said he was flagging slightly from the details by the end of the article. I'm chary of adding more. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that mentioning some of his most notable stage performances, say three or four through the years is going to be wearisome to the reader. The reviewer was talking about the article though not the lead... As a quick reference I think the average reader might want a few example of his plays as I'd expect with a few examples of his films (which you've done). I know he appeared in a tremendous number of plays over the years, but if you could highlight the ones he is most famous for I think this would help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead now mentions five stage roles to balance the five films mentioned there. Tim riley (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He received nominations and awards in the UK, Europe and the US for his stage and screen work from 1948 until his death, and received posthumous nominations for his final films." Such as? Worth mentioning if he had an Oscar/ Golden Globe or BAFTA wins/noms I think.
    • He was nominated for Oscars but never won one. Had he done so I'd have singled it out in the lead, but I think as things stand a blanket reference is best here. We have a complete list of nominations and awards elsewhere. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life and career
  • "Since 1893 Arthur Richardson had been senior art master at Cheltenham Ladies' College" - since and had been seem to conflict, how about "Arthur Richardson had been senior art master at Cheltenham Ladies' College from 1893 onwards"?
  • "in which religion" I don't think you need to use the word religion here, "in which she raised Ralph" should suffice.
  • Lydia wished Ralph to become a priest -Lydia had aspirations for Ralph to become a priest? Not a fan of "wished"!
    • I think "aspirations" has overtones of social striving. I'll go for "wanted" instead. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Banquo, Malvolio, Lorenzo and Marc Anthony? I think if the characters he played have articles they should probably be linked throughout, or at least link the better known characters.
    • I wondered about this as I wrote, and am still unsure. I'm not going to link to Mark Antony as that article is on the real man not the Bard's character. But there are articles on, e.g. Caliban and Prospero. My question is, would it help the reader to have links to half a dozen or more Shakespeare roles when the plays are already linked? On balance I think it might be a distraction, but I am by no means unpersuadable on this point. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it might be overdoing to link all of the characters but it might be helpful to link a couple of the main Shakespeare ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And now I look again, perhaps the reader might find Falstaff a useful link. Incidentally, my next planned project is opera of that name, and then on to Gielgud, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the end of the run" Do we know when the 610 performance run came to an end?
    • I can check from the classified ad pages of The Times. Do you think it important? Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well as the reader I was curious as to how many years 610 performances would take!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The biographer Ronald Hayman writes that though a fine singer, "Robeson had no ear for blank verse" and even Peggy Ashcroft's superb performance as Desdemona was not enough to save the production from failure." Not sure why this quote is really necessary for Richardson. You can say it was a failure without.
    • I'm trying to emphasise that this should have been a big break for RR, but the failure of the production cut the ground from under him and Ashcroft, though they both rose above it and had a long and glorious association afterwards. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The producer was Alexander Korda; the two men formed a long and mutually beneficial friendship. " not sure why you need the semicolon here, "Richardson formed a long and mutually beneficial friendship with producer Alexander Forda" I think flows better.
    • I hate the tabloid style "with producer Alexander Korda", avoid it at all costs, and bore the bejasus out of other editors on the subject at PR, GAN and FAC. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enid Bagnold's The Last Joke was savaged by the critics " -can you state production otherwise I think readers will think film.
    • Good idea. The benefit of a fresh pair of eyes! Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a revival of Six Characters in Search of an Author in 1963, judged by the critic Sheridan Morley to have been a high-point of the actor's work in the 1960s,[6] Richardson joined a British Council tour of South Africa and Europe the following year; he played Bottom again, and Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.[18] -I'd remove the semicolon and replace it with a new sentence -just a suggestion..
  • "thirteen cinema films" -why is cinema needed?
    • He made a television film, Witness for the Prosecution. I'm a bit hazy about how a television film differs from a television programme, but the sources definitely have it down as a film, though not a cinema one. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a film of enormous length" - perhaps state length in brackets?
    • I'd have liked to, but it was put out in various lengths, all inordinate. I think (from memory) the shortest was five hours and the longest was knocking eight! Perhaps I should add a footnote to that effect do you think? Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ideal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Tim riley (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the funeral Mass was at Richardson's favourite church" -which was?
    • As you may imagine, I asked myself the same question when I was writing. Strangely the sources don't say, and even more strangely The Times doesn't seem to give details (presumably because it was a private affair), and what's more Googling "RC church Walton Street" draws a blank. For want of anything better I think I have to stick with the existing wording (from Miller). But it's a very good question, and I'm going to go on looking into it. It's the sort of small but niggling point that's an itch one needs to scratch. There are later editions of O'Connor than the one I used: perhaps it'll be in there. One for my next trip to the British Library, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: cracked it! Miller had got himself muddled. He writes "Sir Ralph's favourite church in Walton Street", but a further combing of The Times archives reveals that it was actually in Warwick Street, Soho. Shall add forthwith. Very pleased you prodded me on this. Tim riley (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. I'd like to see a little more detail on some of his film roles and critical reception of his performances but it already looks much improved and aside from this I think this is well on its way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest thanks, dear Doctor. Some really good stuff in there, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jack1956[edit]

A thoroughly good read, clearly written, well researched and carefully referenced. After following up some of the points raised above this will be an excellent article. Jack1956 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Jack. Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ssilvers[edit]

You asked:

  • Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?
No. I think they give the right level of detail, and the quotes chosen are of interest to read.
  • ... should all quote boxes be the same background colour or ought I to introduce a bit of variety?
I don't know if you need variety, but you probably need a more interesting background color, like "cream/parchment" or some pastel color. Also, you do not need the quotation marks within the quote box - they look awkward there and create too much white space within the boxes (see the text boxes in Hair (musical)). Finally, I think that some of the boxes should be a little wider, so that the text does not wrap around so soon. I edited one of the boxes as an example of the width issue.
  • Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?
Extremely useful, IMO.
  • Have I given enough coverage to his films?
Probably yes, but I would not segregate them to the bottom - I would describe the films and TV in the periods above, so the whole thing is more chronological. Recordings (and maybe radio) can be separate where you have them.
  • Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?
No need for an infobox.
  • Order of sections: should "Reputation" come before (as now) or after "Radio etc"?
I like Reputation where you have it, after his work is discussed.
  • Radio etc - would the info here be better subsumed in the main text or is it helpful as a separate section?
See above.

All of this is merely my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt! I will not watch this page, so e-mail me if you have follow-up questions. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful input! Many thanks, sir! Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both suggestions now put into effect. Tim riley (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A very nicely (and speedily!) put together article which is a much more fitting coverage of the man than the previous efforts. A few comments and suggestions below: act or ignore as you see fit.

Not all that speedily: I was working, more meo, in my sandbox/litter tray for a month before going public. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • "Lydia Richardson left them": do we need the surname repeated?
  • Xaverian College: any clues as to dates or his age?
    • None, I'm afraid. Both the full-length biographies mention the event but give no dates.
      • Later: while looking for something else I found a 1972 newspaper interview that gives RR's age at the seminary episode a 15 or 16. I've added accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he saw Sir Frank Benson as Hamlet": you've linked to Hamlet the play (in which case Benson was in it). Prince Hamlet is the character.
    • Didn't even know the article was there. Thank you: now linked there. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "knew at once that his future lay in acting": a little on the crystal ball here?

Early career

  • Wondering why you've not linked Mark Antony, although you've linked other parts?
    • That article is about the real chap, rather than Shakespeare's character. A bit misleading to link to him, I think. Similarly I haven't linked Hotspur and Prince Hal later in the text. Real historically, but how much resemblance to them the Bard's creations have is anybody's guess. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be noticed by the critics, and to gain favourable reviews": any examples, even as a footnote?

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it, at your leisure. No rush. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Second World War

  • "Charles (1945–1998)": you have used shortened dates elsewhere
    • True. The MoS prefers the shorter form and I've now complied. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Vic, 1944–47

  • "Richardson did not wish to attempt Lear, and never did so": I think you've already told us that he never did Lear.

1948–59

  • "The Fallen Idol, had notable commercial and critical success, won awards in Europe and America." "and won awards" may read a little better?

More soon. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final, minor points

1975–83

  • "seeing whom at the Brighton Hippodrome was one of his earliest theatrical memories." Grammatically correct and perfect English, but feels a little laboured, perhaps?

Character and reputation

  • "Tynan, who was sometimes brutally critical of Richardson in roles that Tynan thought him unsuited to" I had to read this a couple of times to get the meaning straight. (It may just be me being a bit dense!)
    • Fair comment. Now simplified. I'm not sure it's quite right even now, and may polish further. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to your specific questions:

Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?

  • No. There's a nice balance between detail and big picture to keep it interesting.

The quote boxes are, frankly, in lieu of usable pictures. Comments welcome on pictures I could legitimately use. And should all quote boxes be the same background colour or ought I to introduce a bit of variety?

  • The boxes are fine (and I'm glad you moved away from the previous, more luminous version!) I'd stick with the same colour.

Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?

  • Useful, I think.

Have I given enough coverage to his films? Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?

  • I'm not sure the IB, as it was previously constituted, was much of a help.

Order of sections: should "Reputation" come before (as now) or after "Radio etc"? Radio etc - would the info here be better subsumed in the main text or is it helpful as a separate section?

  • Looks like these two have already been sorted, but personally I'd go for the chronological run-through of his life and works first, and then go to the examination of his character and reputation.

I hope all this helps! Please drop me a note when you decide to go to FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points. Peer reviews are always stimulating and productive, but this one is turning out to be especially so. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

I found it hard to come up with anything of significance in this typically well-polished biographical article. So most of my points are veritable nitpicks that even your beloved Beckmesser would blush to mark down. The one point perhaps worthy of a little attention is the very last one:

Early years
  • "the biographer John Miller" → "John Miller's biography"
  • A date/year for Xaverian College would be useful
    • Can't be precise about this. The nearest I can find is "aged 15 or 16" in a newspaper interview in 1972, and I've added that. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
  • Should Charles Doran have a redlink? He looks notable enough for an article
Old Vic, 1930–32
  • "a variable season" → "a varied season", maybe?
West End and Broadway
  • Is there a name for the "Hungarian fantasy"?
  • (last para): Maybe just "Bees on the Boatdeck", rather than Priestley's, since the old boy is mentioned again later in the paragraph?
  • "part of the 1930s" → "part in the 1930s"
Second World War
  • Not sure about your adoption of the slang term "pranging" into the actual text. Perhaps if it were encased in quotes – otherwise I'd use a more formal term.
    • I've tried it with quotes and it takes the fun out of the prose. I think I'll chance it as it is at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously I shall oppose...no, let's see what happens. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Old Vic suffered "severe damage" rather than "destruction"; at any rate it wasn't obliterated.
  • "with Thorndike at its head" - as it's a while since she was mentioned, perhaps identify her as Sibyl
Old Vic, 1944–47
  • Is the Comédie-Française a "company" or a theatre?
    • Like the Old Vic, it's both. I see that strictly speaking the main building is called the Salle Richelieu, but I think that's a technicality. I've added "theatre" for clarity. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • Jason Robards: perhaps add the Jr. to avoid necessity of using the link
  • Keats and Shelley should be linked (especially as Norman Shelley already has been).
    • Definitely. An inadvertent omission now remedied. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He recorded ... the superscriptions for Vaughan Williams' Sinfonia antartica". It's not clear to me how a superscription can be recorded.
    • Well, in the score RVW put a brief quotation from Shelley, Coleridge, Donne et al at the head of each movement. It used to be the done thing to have an actor read them out before the orchestra got cracking (Gielgud read them on Boult's Decca recording) though that seems to have gone out of fashion, probably for the best. Printing them in the programme or liner notes suffices. They are always referred to as "the superscriptions", and I can't think of a better way of putting this. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1970–74
  • "with his wife as co-star" – compare with earlier: "Richardson co-starred with three leading ladies in succession: Celia Johnson, Wendy Hiller and Meriel Forbes".
    • Not sure what you mean here. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that you name her as Meriel Forbes earlier, and now she's "his wife". Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Character and reputation
  • Nothing to quarrel with in the section, but could there be a line or two somewhere which refers to Richardson's life away from the stage? We don't know where he lived, how he relaxed, whether he had any social or political views – do his biographers give any hints? I remember in my youth seeing him on a talkshow alongside Enoch Powell. As Powell pontificated at length, Richardson stared at him in apparent rapt attention, occasionally interjecting "Marvellous!", or "Extraordinary!". I formed the distinct impression that he was taking the piss. But are there any clues to what he actually thought?
    • Splendid idea. I have added a brief note on his politics, religious views, and hobbies. Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, well-prepared, a joy to read. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable, isn't it, how much a peer review can improve an article? I am finding this one particularly productive and I am most grateful to you, as to earlier reviewers, for top-notch input. – Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly do get an unusual amount of input in your peer reviews!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless because I need more help than most editors. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be that your writing is so exquisite and pleasurable to read that you attract more people willing to read and review than the average editor!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think it's Sir Ralph's magic that is the attraction. Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber comments[edit]

Pity the "theatrical knights" doesn't lead to more specific destination than just Knight Bachelor as I thought the theatrical knights were themselves notable as a group (?)

It's a pleasing idea, but the problem, I think, would be whom to include. "Theatrical knights" of the mid 20th century were not only Richardson, Olivier and Gielgud, but also Cedric Hardwicke (knighted 1934), Seymour Hicks (1935), C Aubrey Smith (1944), Lewis Casson (1945), Godfrey Tearle (1951), Donald Wolfit (1957), Michael Redgrave (1959) and Alec Guinness (1959). Of the same generation, though knighted rather later, were Felix Aylmer (1965) and Noël Coward (1969). There may be others I've missed. To be honest, I know precious little about most of these, and certainly not enough to make a worthwhile portmanteau article. That's not to say that another editor mightn't make a good job of it, of course. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ok - will look into it - my mother has been a film reviewer and is a fan of Sir Ralph - will ask her. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just asked my mum - had to go pick up some rice she's cooked for our moroccan tagine chicken - she wasn't aware of the term used officially, but of course it meant "Larry, Ralph and John" ...intrigued now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but the two elder boys remained with their father and Lydia Richardson left them - any reason we've left her surname here?

Now pruned. Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films in which Richardson appeared in the later 1970s and early eighties - looks funny with one in numerals and the other words.

His last radio broadcast was in 1982 in a documentary programme about Little Tich, whom he saw at the Brighton Hippodrome before the First World War - "whom he had seen?

Both done. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated scribbles from Cassianto[edit]

  • "Arthur Richardson had been senior art master at Cheltenham Ladies' College" -- Could we get away with nailing the definitive article here just before "senior art master", or was he one of a few?
    • I think he was probably the senior art master, but the sources don't say. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ostensible cause of the couple's separation was a row over Lydia's choice of wallpaper for her husband's study." -- No comment, just empathy :-)
    • Unless a very considerable bribe is secreted in the lower-ground washroom of the British Library I shall send Mrs Cassianto a message revealing your shameless views. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He left Doran in 1923 and toured in a new play, Outward Bound by Sutton Vane. He returned to..." -- "he" being Richardson and not Vane or Doran?
    • Well, I think it's adequately unambiguous. If I put his name in at the start of the second sentence it would impede the prose, I think. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, I am probably way off the mark here but is "Richardson began to be noticed by the critics" quite correct? Why am I wanting to say "Richardson was beginning to be noticed by the critics"; or, "Richardson was soon noticed by the critics"; or, "Richardson was starting to earn interest from the critics", or something similar? I note the following line "and to gain favourable reviews", but even this I'm wanting to say "gaining favourable reviews".
    • Yes, you're right. The prose can be tightened up here. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link Bottom?
    • I think so. I have been a bit iffy (see the Doctor's comments above and my replies) about linking to articles on Shakespearean characters, e.g. Prospero and Caliban apropos RR and Gielgud at the Old Vic in 1931, but I have undeniably dithered about linking Titania and Bully Bottom. I'll have a final ponder, but I think you're right. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, clutching it straws thanks largely to the earlier excellent comments of my esteemed colleagues. More soonest...CassiantoTalk 18:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent straws, but, yes, I have had some top-flight input from our First Eleven, or rather our First Ten till you got here. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West End and Broadway

  • J B Priestley →J. B. Priestley

1948–59

  • R C Sherriff →R. C. Sherriff
  • "Outcast of the Islands directed by Carol Reed and The Sound Barrier directed by David Lean" -- We have "directed by" used twice in close succession.
  • N C Hunter →N. C. Hunter. I'm starting to see some consistency here so I am wondering if I am in fact incorrect in thinking that the full stops are actually needed.
    • In American usage the full stops are still customary, I believe, in "Mr. Smith", "H. G. Wells" etc, but in British usage they are old fashioned. Government typists were instructed to stop using them in official documents more than forty years ago. The dear old Times, it's true, still uses full stops for people's initials (though not for Mr, Mrs etc), but The Sunday Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian have long since abandoned them, and the BBC website doesn't use them either. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "playing Buckingham to Olivier's Richard in the 1955 film of Richard III." "of Richard III"?

1960s

  • "His performance won critical praise, but the rest of the cast was less well received." Should it not be "were less well received" as a cast is a collection of people?
    • Both are correct, but perhaps "were" is more idiomatic. Shall adopt. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Ref 67 - missing comma
  • Ref 107 - Do we know the article title?
  • Ref 112 - Missing period for first page number
  • Ref 138 - Do we know the page number?
    • All excellent catches. Keen-eyed work!

Sections that I haven't mentioned all look great. Top notch stuff! CassiantoTalk 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points. I'll go and deal with the last of them now. Excellent stuff! Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba[edit]

I really enjoyed reading this Tim! Thanks so much for your work on the article. First, your questions...

  • Do the details of roles, productions and reviews become boring to the reader?
    • Nope, this is an actor article - we expect as much!
  • Quote boxes
    • This is purely a matter of taste, so I'll by no means insist on a change (!) but the pink colour isn't ideal IMO. Most articles go with light blue, which I think is good.
  • Are the section hatnotes irritating or useful?
    • I personally find them superfluous.
  • Have I given enough coverage to his films?
    • I'm afraid I don't think you have. Throughout the article there is frequently reference to his theatrical co-stars, some indications of the play's success, the role he played, and a good amount of critical commentary on his performances. His film work gets hardly any of this. I'm also suggesting below that you mention his award wins and nominations: it's very useful to highlight to readers which roles received this special acclaim and attention.
  • Should there be an info-box? There was one, but it contained nothing very much and I binned it. If we have one, what facts should be in it?
    • If you don't like it that's fair, but do keep in mind that just about every actor article without an infobox ends up with unhappy people on the talk page! Basically be prepared to face disputes over this.

Specific comments:

  • First para of lead: perhaps the second "Old Vic" could be replaced with "the company"? I don't think there would be any ambiguity over what is being referred to.
  • Maybe it should be stressed in the lead that most of his early work was in Shakespeare?
  • "until shortly before his sudden death" - Could we mention the age? This would be useful if there's no infobox.
  • I wonder if we should name his brothers?
  • "Lydia wanted Ralph" - This is the only time he is referred to by first name, and it doesn't really seem necessary to me.
  • Was he ever stationed abroad during WWII?
  • 1948–59: we could make this section heading more interesting by adding "international fame", or something? If any of the other subsequent subheadings could be made more informative/descriptive, that would also be good (although I know this can be tough).
    • Have changed this one. Will ponder others. Tim riley (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anna Karenina "although Richardson's notices were excellent" - I think we should mention the role. It may also be of interest to state that Leigh was Olivier's wife - not everyone will make the connection.
    • Added role. Shall have to ponder how best to fit in the Olivier/Leigh angle. Tim riley (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fallen Idol is one of his best known films: we should have a brief plot description and state RR's role. I'd also mention that its directed by Carol Reed, considered one of the top British directors of the era. The paragraph here also ends without a citation.
  • Olivia De Havilland and Montgomery Clift are notable enough co-stars, and William Wyler a notable enough director, to name for The Heiress. I'd also extend the final sentence - "The film did not prosper at the box-office despite good reviews and four Academy Awards. Richardson's performance was praised, and he received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor." The film is considered a classic by many people today, which may be worth mentioning if you can find a source.
  • Mention that he won a BAFTA for The Sound Barrier.
  • I find myself asking why he turned down Waiting for Godot? And I wonder if the sentences on this could be moved up to the former paragraph, which is very short...
    • Expanded on Godot. Added a bit. I'd rather keep this para on its own, as its such a different topic from its neighbours. Tim riley (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for doing this, although I personally feel it would be more effective to mention his reasons for dismissing the play before the comment about his regret? --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Day's Journey wasn't a Hollywood studio film, and it was shot in New York.
    • The benefits of PR! Thank you for correcting that error. Now redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it's worth mentioning that Dr Zhivago is one of the highest-grossing films of all time? That's pretty impressive that he appeared in such a film. I'd also mention that Lean directed, that it starred Julie Christie, and that RR received a BAFTA nomination for the three roles.
  • Regarding What the Butler Saw - the term "hated" jarred for some reason! I think "strongly disliked" would be more appropriate.
    • I think we must agree to differ on this. "Strongly disliked" is much too mild. There were people shrieking at RR, "Give back your knighthood!" and other abuse. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal comment, that production of Home sounds fascinating! Is this one of the ones you caught, by any chance? I see that RR was Tony nominated, this should probably be mentioned.
    • It is a wonderful, moving play, and has been revived with other actors in the West End, but somehow I didn't want to see anyone other than Richardson and Gielgud in their parts. There is a made-for-television recording of the original production available on DVD, and I recommend it with all my heart. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll definitely try and find some way of watching that, thanks. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enormous hit" is a bit strong.
  • We have no mention at all of Lady Caroline Lamb (film), which won him a BAFTA nomination (and also featured Olivier, which you may want to mention).
    • Added. (Never heard of it till now, I blush to tell you.)
      • Oh neither had I! I just noticed on the filmography page that it won him a nomination so thought it should be mentioned. It only has 216 votes on IMDb so it must be an obscurity these days (which is somewhat strange considering the cast). --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony nomination for No Man's Land? And how long did the play run for?
    • It ran for three years in three London theatres (I saw it in two of them) and on Broadway before ending in the TV studios (see you-tube). If I had to nominate the greatest theatrical experiences of my 62 years to date, it would be one of my top three. As to the Tonies there's a nuance here, in that to English theatregoers and, more to the point, English actors, I don't think Tonies impinge all that much - nothing like the impact of the Oscars. It would, I think, look slightly odd to keep mentioning Tony nominations here. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are still considered one of the major awards an actor can receive though, no? Personally I always mention major award wins and nominations in actor articles as I think it's useful way of indicating their most important roles. But if you really think it's unnecessary I shan't insist. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have a quotation or two from notable individuals after his death. Did Gielgud and/or Olivier make statements?
    • I'm a bit chary of pious comments dutifully offered when a person has just died, but will look around and see if I can find something more considered from the years after RR's death. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more information on Greystoke feels warranted - brief summary of film, the role he played, etc..
    • Good. Added. Grateful if you'd check it's all right, as I haven't seen the film. Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen it either but your description looks good to me. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But honestly, great article that gives you a great picture of the man. Hope this review is useful - cheers! --Loeba (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's extraordinarily useful. If you can bear to skim through the thing again I'd be grateful to know if you think I've done enough. Quite understand if that's asking more than flesh and blood can stand, naturally. Please find attached one Old Codger Card, entitling you to my best attentions at a peer review of any future article of your choice. – Tim riley (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's no hardship, I genuinely enjoy looking over the article. Thanks for acting on these suggestions - RR's film work definitely takes a back-seat to his theatre work in the article, but I suppose that's reasonable. I'm happy with the additions made yesterday - his most important films now have a couple of sentences each and that's the main thing. I left a couple more comments above but they aren't major. Be sure to ping me when this is at FAC. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After an astoundingly good and stimulating peer review, longer than the whole text of at least one of the featured articles I have contributed to, I am closing the PR down, with profound thanks to the all-star cast who contributed. Tim riley (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ralph_Richardson/archive1&oldid=1146574714"