Talk:Ralph Richardson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ralph Richardson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2015.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 4, 2014 Peer review Reviewed
February 12, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Wagner (mini-series)[edit]

Sir Ralph Richardson, Sir John Gielgud and Sir Lawrence Olivier also appeared together in the great "Wagner" TV series -- see Wagner (mini-series). Here they played the three cabinet ministers of King Ludwig of Bavaria. This firm, shot in Munich 1983, was the only film in which all three friends ever appeared together.--dunnhaupt (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Graham Greene[edit]

I saw Ralph Richardson starring in Graham Greene's comedy "The Complaisant Lover" on London's Shaftesbury Avenue in June 1952 -- a role not mentioned here. --dunnhaupt (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Ralph Richardson[edit]

That isn't Ralph Richardson in the cap in the behind-the-scenes photo from The Volunteer.
a) It doesn't look like him
b) That officer look like he is a Lieutenant (two stripes) Ralph Richardson played a Lieutenant Commander (2 1/2 stripes)
c) When Ralph Richardson visited the carrier he was in normal blue uniform, sometimes wearing a duffel coat. Later he is seen in mess dress when he goes to watch the film.
d) The only time we see anyone in tropical (white) uniform is when they're showing the film on the carrier of their trip to Morocco the previous summer -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's really most interesting. But the WP:RS is impeccable, and the above is WP:OR. I have restored the image, pending substantiation of your theories. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Later: further discussion with SteveCrook on user talk page. Concurred with and thanked him for his further actions. Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Two comments[edit]

I see that this article was quite recently promoted to FA status, and it appears to be very well done. However, the second clause in the lead leaves me rather confused; what exactly is a theatrical knight? An actor who's been knighted? Anyway, I think it would be helpful to add a note explaining what a theatrical knight is and/or mentioning who else is in this "group of theatrical knights": is it just Oliver and Richardson?

Also, the last sentence in the second paragraph leaves me similarly confused: "He was not known for his portrayal of the great tragic roles in the classics, preferring character parts in old and new plays." Is a "great tragic role" a main role in a tragedy, while "character parts" are minor character roles"? And are classics, old plays, and new plays three separate categories? I apologize for being utterly ignorant of mid-20th century British theater, but I thought other non-experts might be confused by these two issues, so I have pointed them out. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Good questions. The term "Theatrical Knights" originally referred to Sir Laurence Olivier (later Lord Olivier), Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson. It does mean actors who have been knighted. The first actor to be knighted was Sir Henry Irving but there have been various others since then. This could probably do with an article of its own -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I inherited the first phrase from the version before I overhauled the article. It isn't essential, and could be removed if it confuses non-English readers. I take it to mean RR, Gielgud and Olivier - in fact I have no doubt of it - but RR's position in relation to the other two is made plain in the text. On the second point. I think the difference between classics and modern works is pretty plain, and ditto the difference between the heroes of tragedies and the character roles. Other online sources such as the ODNB don't, as I recall, feel the need to explain these common terms. We have had most helpful contributions at PR and FAC from several editors in North America, Asia and Australia, and the second point above hasn't been raised at any stage, as far as I remember. I think the wording can safely stand, but I'd be glad to know if you think replacing "theatrical knights" with "leading actors" or similar would be easier to understand. Thanks for your comments. All grist to the mill. Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Afterthought: How about this: "Sir Ralph David Richardson (19 December 1902 – 10 October 1983) was an English actor, who, along with John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier, dominated the British stage...etc"? Removing duplicate links later on to JG and LO. I'm working on the Gielgud article, and it would be no bad thing to adopt the same form of wording for the opening of that page as we use here, whatever we decide. Ditto if the Olivier article is ever bought up to FA (though someone else may have to do that one, as I'm not sure I know enough about him.) Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim riley; I wasn't expecting such a quick response. :) I think the new wording of the second sentence in the lead is a vast improvement over the old, and I think my second comment can be safely ignored if reliable sources don't feel the need to explain those four terms. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Good! So pleased, and thanks indeed for your input. Tim riley (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is footnote 6 correct?[edit]

Is footnote 6 correct?24.190.114.148 (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Meant reference 6 and now see it's been revised.24.190.114.148 (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Flush left[edit]

She eloped with me, then aged four.
Richardson on his mother's
breakup of the family[1]

This is the part that needs to be flush left. This statement "Richardson on his mother's breakup of the family" aligning to the right looks very poor in my opionion.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to flush it to the left. All the other sources in quote boxes are placed to the right, so consistency suggests that this should also be placed the same way. The MoS is flexible on the point, as is the quotebox template documentation. There is no good reason to push it the left, apart from personal preference, that I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I still think this looks FAR BETTER:
She eloped with me, then aged four.
Richardson on his mother's breakup of the family
[2]
May I suggest you ask another editor or two if they agree? The words "the family" flying off to the right is what looks so poor to me.EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, let us see who else comments here. You have an opinion that isn't necessarily represented by the MoS, which puts it down to personal preference alone, rather than a matter of policy or guideline. The floor is open for others to comment, if they see fit. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You've now changed them both to be flush right which looks better. Before, the top portion was aligning left and the bottom was aligning right. This is all just semantics, really, but sometimes "style points" matter; and for Featured Articles that is assuredly the case.  :-)
No, they have always both aligned to the right: my addition of a line break just makes that more obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This version, with the line break, makes the flush right look fantastic. Well done Cat!EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

She eloped with me, then aged four.
Richardson on his mother's
breakup of the family[3]

EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ralph Richardson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Prolific, respected actor, needs general expansion, citing. Filmography should be completed and split from article.

Last edited at 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 03:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ralph Richardson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ralph Richardson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ O'Connor, p. 20
  2. ^ O'Connor, p. 20
  3. ^ O'Connor, p. 20