From the 1930s to the 1980s Ralph Richardson was one of the leading actors on the British stage. He also made more than sixty films. He was not a bravura actor like Laurence Olivier or a romantic one like John Gielgud but was famous for playing character roles, at the same time very human yet often strangely mystical. The director Peter Hall considered him the greatest actor he ever worked with. The article has had a superb peer review from an all-star cast of editors, and I think it now does Sir Ralph justice. – Tim riley (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Support I'm happy with the results of the peer review in which I provided a fair bit of criticism and am pleased to see that the article has further improved since. Admittedly I'm not a fan of the pink and purple boxes, I'd be inclined to use a light silver or light blue, but I think this is worthy of being promoted. Excellent work on one of Britain's greatest actors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the support (and tremendously helpful PR comments), Doctor. I am wholly biddable about the box colours, and will be delighted if you have a go at recolouring them. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Support – I was a late entrant to the PR so RR was already highly polished by the time I had got there. Thanks Tim for bringing what I hope will be the first of the three intended theatrical knight articles to the FAC stage. A fine piece of work indeed. CassiantoTalk 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, although I think Tim has given away their identity in his introduction above. CassiantoTalk 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - read it at peer review and noted improvements. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to all three editors for support here and input at PR. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Tim, the article is not listed on the FAC page and doesn't appear to have been entered there - unless this is yet another glitch on that page. My proper comments will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a glitch: merely incompetence on my part. Now remedied. Thank you very much for spotting this. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources: Neill entry – "The Oxford Shakespeare" is, I think, a series title and should, I believe, be italicised.
I used the "cite book" template, and included "|series=The Oxford Shakespeare|", so I'm pretty much stuck with the resulting formatting, I think. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Apart from these minor issues, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support: As Tim says, this article had a very thorough going-over at peer review. As one of the all-star cast of reviewers acknowledged above by Tim, I have to say that there wasn't much left for me to carp over, after the others had done their stuff, but carp I did, and my concerns were all adequately addressed. This will make a fine FA and TFA at an appropriate date (or at any time, really). Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to Brian for the review here and at PR, and for support. Greatly appreciated on all counts. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support. Yet another visitor to the hugely popular box-office success of the peer review. The article was in fine shape then, and it's in even better condition now: fully deserving of FA status. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support: I commented at the PR, and my minor points were dealt with there. This is a superb piece of work, and easily meets the FA criteria. Not bad for a Lancastrian! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support I'm delighted to see an important classic actor at FAC. Tim has done a wonderful job on the article and I've no doubt that it meets all the FA criteria. Thanks again for your work on this one. --Loeba(talk) 20:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Grateful thanks to SchroCat, Sarastro and Loeba for superb input at PR and for support here. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support Had my say at the Peer review. Well done indeed!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and support here. Tim riley (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Image review - If you want me to look at prose, just say the word.
File:Ralph Richardson.JPG - under current practice, what was normal for the industry is not enough; we need proof that there was no copyright symbol on the back of the photograph. As such, we should try and find the back of this photograph, or another.
For all of them: I suggest ensuring that the descriptions are in English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. If the first image is not permissible, I can move the Long Day's Journey one up to replace it. Delighted if you'd like to look at the text of the article as well. Tim riley (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
We could (for the first image) try and see if a copyright was renewed for the image in... 1977, I believe. Do you know what film it is for? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I uploaded the image and included a link to the renewal records. It is definitely out of copyright. Cheers Loeba(talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What were your search terms? I doubt it would have been under "Richardson" if it had been renewed. Usually, as far as I can tell, batch renewals are done under the name of a film or production. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I also searched for the film title (The Heiress, which it has to be as it's the only film he made in 1949 and it was for Paramount). I've done dozens of searches for publicity stills like this and not one has had its copyright renewed. --Loeba(talk) 16:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll note that on the image description page (as for "not one has had its copyright renewed", I agree (from my own experience, MGM didn't start regularly including copyright notices on its posters until the 1940s), but we still have to show due diligence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm greatly indebted to Loeba and Crisco for their expertise and the trouble they have taken over this image question. Those of us who are not clued up on images have cause to be grateful to those who are. Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Images are okay - Per discussion above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Prose comments (Support below)
as Sir is not part of his given name, should it be bolded here? I generally don't bold honorifics, but I understand the UK has its own style guidelines
I've checked half a dozen FAs on knighted luminaries in various spheres of endeavour, and they all have "Sir" in bold in the lead. Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
taking the youngest son with her. - perhaps mention that Ralph is the youngest son? After all, for all the reader knows there could be a fourth son
Adding "Ralph" as suggested. Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Xaverian College - notable?
For a red link, you mean? I think probably not. People with an interest in religious topics are pretty hot on covering as many bases as possible, and the absence of an article suggests to me that there is unlikely to be one in the future. Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
frequently posted documents to the wrong people as well as engaging - one is -ed, one is -ing. Perhaps the two should meet?
Looking forward to it. Thank you for your suggestions so far. Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
in Agate's phrase, ran away with the piece, - should "ran away with the piece" be in quotes?
I am sometimes twitted for overusing quotation marks; when, as here, the context seems to me to make it plain that these are the ipsissima verba I think it's all right to omit the quotes, but I have no objection to including them. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I ask as you include quotes with "In Coveney's phrase, "His oddness was ever startling and never hardened into mere eccentricity."" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added quote marks. (We're so well advanced into the PR/FAC process that I doubt if anyone will twit me again on this.) Tim riley (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Linked at first mention, earlier. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Odd, I didn't find it with CTRL-F. Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Times commented, "Mr Ralph Richardson makes Drummond as brave and stupid on the screen as he is in print." - if we don't mention that the film is based on a series, this may not make sense to some readers (those of my generation, for instance, although I know Drummond from reviewing Schro's stuff)
Was the play entitled Peter and Wendy or Peter Pan?
Always known as Peter Pan. A quick check on old theatre notices in The Times archive confirms that this has always been so. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It ran for two months; - Pan or Cornelius?
The latter. Not clear, I agree, and pleased you've noticed that. Shall make it plain which play is meant. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
He had taken flying lessons during the 1930s and had logged 200 hours of flying time, but admitted to being as timid a pilot as he was reckless as a driver. - Don't think you've mentioned that he was a reckless driver before.
I haven't, but the sentence didn't seem to me to need it. Could recast as "but though a notoriously reckless driver he admitted to being a timid pilot." Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I like that. It also makes the motorcycle bit below feel less unexpected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Olivier rapidly eclipsed Richardson's record for pranging. - I hate to ruin the (perhaps unintentional) comedic effect of this sentence, but "pranging" is not encyclopedic.
Of the massed ranks of peer reviewers, only one (whom I greatly respect, and whom I'll thank to stop smirking if he's reading this) commented on that point, and I replied – and still think – that adding quotes, though strictly correct, would make the prose rather leaden. I think the earlier quotes for the slang term can fairly be taken to do service for both occurrences. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Agate wrote, "He had everything the part wants - The subject of the last sentence was Olivier.
Olivier is the subject of the first half of the previous sentence, but "the evening belonged to Richardson" makes repeating "Richardson" in the next sentence unnecessary, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
a National Theatre - caps? Note that you're using "National Theatre" as a generic (with "a")
Yes, I pondered that when writing it. I originally had it in lower case, and it looked a bit strange – struck an indefinably wrong note. I'm wholly biddable on the point though. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Never crossed my mind, but it's just right. Changed. Tim riley (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Richardson, though hardly ever satisfied with his own performances, evidently believed he had done well as Falstaff. Hall and others tried hard to get him to play the part again, but referring to it he said, "Those things I've done in which I've succeeded a little bit, I'd hate to do again." - what part? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Falstaff, as mentioned in the previous sentence. I could say "that part" if you think there is any doubt. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! No, no need. I was reading an extra "as" in between done and well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've made the changes mentioned above. Many thanks for your input. It just goes to show that even after one helluva peer review there can still be polishing to be done. Tim riley (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
much less well paid - feels awkward (and as if there is a hyphen missing). An alternative wording?
"much less remunerative" would avoid the question of hyphenation, but is it perhaps a bit mandarin? Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian, rather ;-) "less lucrative"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I fight shy of "lucrative". Possibly the associations of "filthy lucre" make it seem to me faintly disreputable. Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Profitable, then? Or is it too business-y? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That's probably the best, or at any rate the least bad, option. Will change. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
revival of Six Characters in Search of an Author - no way to know anything about this play, based on the information in the article. No link, no author, and that it was a revival... perhaps the barest of a hint?
Can't think why there wasn't a blue link. Now there is. Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The two men bleakly examining the little nothingness of their lives are John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson giving two of the greatest performances of two careers that have been among the glories of the English-speaking theater. - does the original quote have no commas?
Will check at the British Library, a.s.a.p. Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Just nipped into the BL: I'm afraid your suspicion is correct. Mea culpa. Shall go and add the two fugitive commas at once. Tim riley (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - Just the three minor issues above, and they are certainly not deal breakers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Crisco, for your support and for your close reading of the article. Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)