Talk:RADA/Archive 1

Prestigious/best/foremost etc.
Can people stop putting up judgements of RADA's preeminence supported only by the RADA webite or associated documentation (see talk page for Central, which claims to be 'largest in Europe') - if it's true, evidence should be sourced elsewhere or it just looks like a part of RADA's admissions brochure. Many other schools could make a similar claim in the UK, let alone Tisch, Juilliard et al. Let's keep this NPOV, not prospectus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoram Inger (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

More info?
I wish there could be more information added about this, because I am very interested in it. However, since I have none, and can find none, I hope that maybe someone else who knows something about the courses offered could contribute... :-D Cicadaboy 07:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just check out their webstite wannes marcelo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I quite agree! I am amazed that an institution as significant as RADA has such a limited entry. Hundreds of the biggest and most well respected names in British theatre and film were educated here and this has to be the single article most in need of expansion in my wiki experience.

LDA
I'm not sure why this stuff about another drama school is there. I mean, no-one would paste Oxford's enrty into Cambridge just because Cambridge founders came from Oxford. --Duncan 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Founded in the 1970s by Marymount College of Fordham University in the United States, and a select group of tutors from the RADA, London Drama Academy (LDA) at Fordham's London Center provides a lively, intensive, high-quality introduction to the principles of British acting and allows students to perfect their craft using practical rather than strictly theoretical approaches.

''Those who attend LDA receive focused training that further develops their skills. Through semester-and year-long sessions at the London Centre LDA students take classes taught by RADA-trained, working theatre professionals—many of whom are experienced performers with the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. ''

Cleanup tag
The history by date section needs to be put into proper paragraphs. If you look back at the old versions of this article, there was a properly formatted history section before, though it was very short. Beorhtric 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the "timeline" is copied word for word from RADA's website. Ever wonder why Wikipedia has something of a reputation for plagiarism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.242.160 (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Emma Watson never attended RADA full-time
Emma Watson has been mentioned in the list of alumni of RADA. But she attended only a summer course at RADA. According to me, only full-time alumni should be included in the list. 59.184.128.45 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Main entrance
Is the main entrance shown at the top still the main one for students/staff etc. I suspect that everyone now enters from the other side through the theatre entrance? (I might be wrong.) Philafrenzy (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gender bias in 'Amunini'
Around 75% of people listed are male; which doesn't appear to tally with the proportions of the extended list (which itself in probably biased too). 92.40.248.89 (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

More stuff needed
RADA has a summer course and school outreach programs. They probably have a number of other things that should be listed, too. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange Sentence under the 1950-2000 section
Please read this sentence and try and figure out what it means in the context of the paragraph:
 * " In 1989 HRH, The Princess of Wales, visited the Academy as President of Council to install her predecessor, Sir John Gielgud, as RADA's first Honorary Fellow."

Is this vandalism to suggest something scandalous or just very bad writing? If Giulgud was the FIRST Honorary fellow, to what was he her predecessot, unless they are referring to it in the strictest of senses in that he predeceased her, which he did NOT. Princess Diana died sevral years before he did. I just don't understand this sentence unless they are suggesting he was The Princess of Wales before she was in a nasty sort of way. Can anyone make sense of that sentence? Thanks for your time. LiPollis (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * King's College London crest.png