Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Gielgud/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2014.

John Gielgud

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) &  Tim riley  talk   21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

After a star-studded PR involving, , , , , , , and , and following our recent collaboration on the associated list, Tim riley has asked me to help steer the very lovely John Gielgud through FAC, after its recent overhaul. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) &  Tim riley  talk   21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN47 doesn't match punctuation of other web sources
 * FN50, Morley: which source is this? Other Morley refs have no date but the only Sources entry is 2001 not 2002
 * Fn52: missing full bibliographic info
 * FN107, 141: page formatting
 * FN190: Who Was Who should be italicized
 * FN191 is incomplete
 * No citations to Hall 2000. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All attended to. Blitzed 191, a drive-by trivia addition.  Tim riley  talk    23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Aargh! An edit conflict intervened, and I didn't - till now - properly thank Nikkimaria for that review.  Tim riley  talk    16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Refreshing my memory with this article, I see only a few errors
 * " After Hillside, Lewis and Val had won scholarships, respectively to Eton and Rugby School" - I believe "respectively" requires a 1:1 ratio. It's not clear from this phrasing whether it was Hillside and Lewis at Eton and Val at Rugby, or Hillside at Eton and Lewis and Val at Rugby.
 * Redrawn  Tim riley  talk    23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gielgud (2000), p. 198; and Morley, p. 81 - why did you remove the date for Morley?
 * Standardise whether your short footnotes use the year or not. (Compare Croall (2000) and Page, p. 50) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dates given only when there is more than one book cited by the same author.  Tim riley  talk    23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright.
 * Support on prose. Another great article, from two amazing authors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Only one really—I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here!. Thanks for your thoughts, comments and support: they are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Behave, SchroCat. My thanks, too Crisco.  Tim riley  talk    08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from Alfietucker
 * I really enjoyed reading this article: not only a well-written and rounded portrait, but studded with intriguing facts and very amusing anecdotes which cheered me tremendously, as well as very moving (Gielgud’s quiet and unfussy way of promoting talented young actors, for instance, comes across well). Just a few comments about content:
 * Lead
 * "The Independent described him as one of a great trinity of actors, together with Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier, who dominated the British stage for much of the 20th century." To cite The Independent as sole authority seems a bit odd, given how widely the three actors have been coupled in people's minds (I remember Spitting Image's perhaps unkind skit in which Gielgud and Olivier are seen ruminating about "Dear, dear Ralph"). A quick Google search dug up these possible additional references: New York Observer; New York Times; The New Statesman; and Peter Sallis!. So, given these (and possibly other) references, I suggest we can be bolder, and write something like: "He has been widely remembered as one of a great trinity of actors, together with Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier, who dominated the British stage for much of the 20th century."
 * I'm not sure about this, as for such a big claim I prefer to see some touchstone for it, rather than the big phrase that immediately triggers a "says who" question in my mind. I'll leave it for Tim to mull over and come back on. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, other things being equal (I sound like Sir Humphrey!) I prefer not to have citations in the lead, but although the fact that JG, Richardson and Olivier were the big three of their generation is clear from the totality of the text it is nowhere specifically stated, and so I suppose we are on thin ice according to WP:LEAD when we mention it in the lead. On the other hand it would look rather odd to omit it. How about adding a line in "Honours, character and reputation" at the start of the fourth para, immediately before the introduction to Coveney's tribute: "Together with Richardson and Olivier, Gielgud was internationally recognised as one of the "trio of theatrical knights" [add ref for direct quote] who dominated the British stage for more than fifty years during the middle and later decades of the 20th century.[add the Indy and the sources mentioned by Alfie]", which would then, as it were, legitimise an uncited statement in the lead? –  Tim riley  talk    07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds a very good solution to me. Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Will do.  Tim riley  talk    08:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Background and early years
 * "For a child with no interest in sport he acquitted himself reasonably well in cricket and rugby for the school. In class, he hated mathematics, was fair at classics, and excelled at English and divinity." Maybe it's just me being really niggly, I feel that there's rather more detail than necessary in these sentences. The most important information, surely, is that he excelled at English (given his relish in delivering the poetry of Shakespeare’s lines), and there's a danger of this getting rather lost in the other less relevant details. The first sentence in particular, it seems to me, presents the kind of information one would include in a detailed full-length biography, or an old-boy's report, rather than an encyclopaedic article: I'd be inclined to cut this. Also the mention of his ability in divinity at this point rather "hangs over" what I subsequently read (was it of any personal significance to him?) and it was only several sections later, in "Honours, character and reputation", that it is finally revealed that religion meant nothing to him after he left Westminster. Should we perhaps have a footnote to explain this if we keep this tidbit in this sentence?
 * I'm not tied to the present wording with hoops of steel, and will get out the secateurs if there is a consensus that we should prune. But we gave very similar information in the Britten article, which I think is the last one I helped pilot through FAC. –  Tim riley  talk    07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved in the FAC for Britten, so I've now had a look at that article with critical eyes. The difference, as I see it (and as the article stands), is that for Britten all the non-musical items that are mentioned either illuminate Britten's character, or his state of health (notwithstanding his suffering life-threatening pneumonia early in his life), or explain his relationship with the cane-happy headmaster (which some writers have suggested is relevant to his pacifism): whereas Gielgud's ability in cricket and rugby does not IMHO illuminate our subject in the same way. Still, it's only a small niggle in a very substantial and excellent article, so I won't insist upon it, though I feel we could lose that sentence without disadvantage. And what do we think of a footnote with the mention of his ability in divinity? Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to me the little details – rugby, divinity etc – give a rounded picture of his schooldays and himself as a schoolboy. I'd like to see what other reviewers think about it. Comments cordially invited from one and all and in partic SchroCat as co-nom.  Tim riley  talk    08:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Tim, I'm not tied to the text on this, and I'm fairly open to removing it. I think it adds a little depth of background to his his school years and, on balance, I'd rather see it kept, but if others also pick up on it, then I won't be too miffed it it goes... - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First acting experience
 * "Gielgud was in the Oxford company in January and February 1924, from October 1924 to the end of January 1925 and in August 1925." A small point: I know this is almost certainly a matter of style, but I think this sentence would read slightly more naturally and clearly if there was an Oxford comma before "and in August 1925".
 * Now with the additional comma. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * War and post-war
 * "but he found at first that less highbrow performers like Beatrice Lillie were better than he at entertaining the troops." At first? So what changed this? You mention later that he entertained troops in Gibraltar – did he meet greater success at that time (in which case it might “tie things up” a bit to say so).
 * I can't find anything to suggest that he changed his material: I infer that he had to learn to work the boisterious army audiences in a way that came more naturally to those like Lillie who had played variety and revue. But this is speculation. –  Tim riley  talk    07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem if there's nothing to indicate how Gielgud's act changed, but can we say - for instance - "in lighter material for the troops in Gibraltar, with whom he had greater success than he had had on such previous appearances" (to resolve the implication of the earlier "he found at first that less highbrow performers [...] were better than he at entertaining the troops")? Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found something ad rem, and have redrawn accordingly.
 * That's a really nice addition. Alfietucker (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's really about it from me. A very enjoyable read and kudos to the editors who have put so much evident good work into this. Alfietucker (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these points, Alfie. Comments above, which I hope will meet your objections.  Tim riley  talk    08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I should have said that my support is not dependent on the changes I suggest; I've only offered them as personal reactions to what seem to me to be slightly loose ends, but in every other respect I think this is a superb article. Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I shouldd have added earlier: thank you so much for taking the time to go over this with a critical eye: your thoughts have been extremely useful and helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support from me with one minor observation: "Gielgud's partner, Martin Hensler, died in 1999. Gielgud died in May the following year, peacefully at home, at the age of 96." Why should Hensler be given his own sentence here? Is there a way of combining the two deaths which would eradicate the died / died repetition? Cassianto talk 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and very much appreciated. I'll defer to the senior editor here on this point, but a possibility to consider would be "Gielgud's partner, Martin Hensler, died in 1999; Gielgud followed the suit in May the next year, peacefully at home, at the age of 96." - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not enthused with "followed the suit" TBH. How about "Hensler and Gielgud died a year apart in 1999 and 2000 respectively."  If this were me personally, I wouldn't even mention Hensler.  Reduce to a footnote if you must, but having him start a para with Sir John coming a close second seems wrong. I would just have this as "Gielgud died peacefully at home, at the age of 96 in May 2000; Hensler predeceased him by a year."  Cassianto talk 19:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant to mention Hensler's death as it seems to Morley and others to have been a tipping point in JG's life, and he went rapidly downhill afterwards. I've fleshed the text out, glancing at this. Thank you, Cassianto, for your support, –  Tim riley  talk    08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Improved since I last looked at it, definitely FA worthy. Great job on a great actor!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Doc - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My thanks, too, Doc.  Tim riley  talk    08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: my main contribution was at peer review. That was a while back, so I've read the article again and picked up a few very minor sweepings:
 * "named for him": in British usage, "named after him" is the idiom


 * Terry family image: could the caption inform us as to which jubilee (i.e. 25th, 50th etc) is being celebrated?
 * Again with captions, perhaps add "(photographed in 2012)" to the Old Vic image details (the theatre is now much more spruce than it was in Gielgud's day).
 * "He gave his first performances on television during 1959: in Rattigan's The Browning Version for CBS and N C Hunter's A Day by the Sea for ITV." I beg leave to challenge the colon. The word "in" links the two parts of the sentence, and should be preceded by a comma. Alternatively you could ditch "in", but that does not read particularly well.
 * "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". The role being...?
 * One for Tim, who has the source for this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Role added.  Tim riley  talk    09:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't it more usual to give James Elroy Flecker his full name?

Pathetic, isn't it? These tiny pinpricks in no way temper my admiration for this comprehensive and utterly readable account of an astonishingly productive life. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Brian. All done, bar the one left for Tim, who has the source. Your time and efforts here are, as always, hugely appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto from me, Brian.  Tim riley  talk    09:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:JG-Benedick-1959.jpg, File:John Gielgud in Secret Agent (1936).jpg, File:London Queen's Theatre auditorium.jpg, File:Gielgud and Haas in Crime and Punishment.jpg, File:Julius Caesar promo still.jpg, File:Gielgud and Leighton in Much Ado 1959.jpg, File:The School for Scandal 1963.jpg: fine
 * File:Old Vic0185.JPG, File:John Gielgud 12. Allan Warren.jpg: fine (cc-by-sa 3.0)
 * File:Lilian Braithwaite & Noël Coward.jpg: fine (corrected author to Bain News Service)
 * File:Ellen-Terry-jubilee.jpg, File:Mrs-Patrick-Campbell-and-EdithEvans.jpg: these should be PD, as the copyright is 25 years for publishers 50 years after publication for anonymous authors.
 * File:Mabel terry-lewis.jpg: conflicting copyright tags need to be cleaned up (should be PD in both the US and UK)
 * Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that review, CT. I've amended the details for File:Mabel terry-lewis.jpg. Can I trouble you further and ask what licence tag you recommend to replace  for File:Ellen-Terry-jubilee.jpg and File:Mrs-Patrick-Campbell-and-EdithEvans.jpg?   Tim riley  talk    08:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco has caught these in the interim. CT, Many, many thanks for your thoughts and comments here: all is very much appreciated in an area rife with confusion (for me, at least!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.