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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier is rated as one of the greatest theatrical names of the twentieth century, along with Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. His article is the last of those three greats to come to FAC following a joint effort. Many thanks for the all-star cast who turned up at PR, whose number consisted Crisco 1492, Jimknut, We hope, Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Ssilvers, Dr. Blofeld, Loeba and Dudley Miles (and, again, many thanks to you all from us both). – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awkward overlap with two images in the award and reception section looking at it in standard on safari, Olivier's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the image below it. Can you move the fame image to the reception section and use Template:Multiple image perhaps to keep them neatly side by side without the overlap. Also the main image, there's a strange background to it with the green and white, wouldn't the other image with the pure white background be better? I must admit I'd have expected to have seen a classic image of LO in the lede, the "brooding intensity" of some of his 30s and 40s portraits are sort of iconic in cinema. Personally I think I'd prefer to see a classic black and white image of him in younger years, but I suppose the colour one might be better quality, and looking in the commons I can't see any which are of similar quality or quite have that iconic look about them except File:Laurence_Olivier_Joan_Fontaine_Rebecca.JPG, which if cropped might look very good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive done something slightly different, and put the multiple image vertically down. I'm normally not too over fussed by the overlap: with the proliferation of different screen sizes, from phones to monumental widescreens, it'll never fit perfectly for everyone. I quite like the current lead photo: like many of Warren's others, it's a stripped down and personal photo of the individual, rather than a staged one in a role. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support That's better. Glad to see this has improved since the PR!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments at the PR. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN53: the bank is a publisher not a work
• Fn124 is incomplete
• FN228 is actually from the BBC's Magazine
• FNs 275 through 277 are italicizing publishers, while 299 is missing italics on the work name
• Location for Olivier 1986?
• You include county for Richards - there are a few other places where county or state might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nikkimaria; all covered except the final point, which will needa little more digging through to find the right details. Your keen eye is as welcome as it always is! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, also per my comments at PR. Lengthy, but well put together. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think this article represents some of the best work on Wikipedia. It is well-researched and written, readable, comprehensive, neutral and well-illustrated. It gives one a thorough sense of this famous actor, illuminating both his good and bad qualities. I proofread this article at the time of the PR and made various suggestions and copy edits then and since then. My concerns have been satisfied, and I congratulate the nominators for their fine work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warm thanks to Crisco and Ssilvers for support here and invaluable input earlier. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same from me too! many thanks to you both. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I was a latecomer to the extraordinarily detailed peer review, and struggled to find even a few points to whinge about. Can't find any more now – I did look. The article has had a long gestation, and the degree of care it has been given is readily apparent; I endorse everything that Ssilvers says above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Brian: as always your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And by me too. Thank you, Brian! Tim riley talk 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is a fine and fair treatment of Laurence Olivier as an actor and as a person. We tend to think of him as an older actor who played some very memorable character roles because most of us weren't here when films like Wuthering Heights were playing at the box office. Hats off to you both for all the work you did on this! :-) We hope (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, We hope. Your support and kind comments are greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments, close to full support -- recusing from coord duties; I know I'm not badly needed here but couldn't resist...

• Like Brian I endorse Ssilvers' comments. The prose is very good, with some neat flourishes that befit the subject -- I just tweaked a bit here and there.
• I'll go with Nikki's source review but will await a formal image review before offering full support.
  • Crisco kindly did a full image review during the peer review, here. Ian Rose, will that do for present purposes? We haven't added any since, I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, SchroCat? Tim riley talk 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one: Wehwalt was good enough to snap LO's star on his travels, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues there. I've asked Crisco if he can pop in just to formally sign off on his review here. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Structure is logical and the level of detail seems appropriate. My one niggle is that I'd love to see you work in a critic's comment that Olivier "looks like a man who could lynch a crowd", one of the most memorable quotes I've heard about an actor. Not sure if it was Tynan or someone else but I daresay it's in some of the sources you've used...
  • Checking further, the perceptive critic seems to be resolutely anonymous in all three places I've seen the quote, here and here online, and where I first saw it years ago, The Movie series (ch. 42, "Olivier's heights" by Sheridan Morley, p. 827), which offers the full quote:

    Olivier looks like a man who could lynch a crowd; he resembles a panther—just when you know where he is and that you've got him cornered, he springs out at you from some totally different direction.

Well done in any case Tim and Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Ian. I'm trying to track down the origins of the quote, but without much success at the moment. I always think it's preferrable to identify the culprit, rather than just have "a critic". It's an elusive search at the moment, but hopefully it'll come to hand shortly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. Perhaps the critic really was anonymous but one assumes they came from some media outlet that, if identifiable, would be enough to include it. Anyway, support wont't be conditional on the quote, much as I'd like to see it in there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Laurence Olivier on stage and screen should be linked a second time besides just the Early acting career section. Most articles on actors have a filmography or a link to one at the end of the article, and many readers would like to easily find this list, and that section is not the most intuitive place for it to be located. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds about this: I have previously done just that, but had several people complain about having just one link in a section, and had the link moved elsewhere. I'm not sure that there's any right or wrong on this one, as if we go with the separate section, it'll probably be taken out for overlinking and for being a single line section. Perhaps we could see what other reviewers say before we change it around? - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are okay - In-depth review done at PR, all dealt with there. Only File:Olivier star.jpg is new, and it's clearly the uploader's own work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks – once again – for your input, Crisco. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Crisco -- that's a comprehensive support from me now, Tim/Schro (but keep trying with that quote)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ian: we are having no joy finding a suitable source for that striking quote. It has an American feel, to me: although we know in these islands what 'lynch' means, the word doesn't slip naturally into English discourse. I was at the British Library this week and I looked in the NY Times archives for the quote. No joy there or on any other archive site I tried. I think I speak for SchroCat when I say that without knowing who wrote it or, at the very least, the original context (profile? review of play? review of film?) we are not comfortable about including it. – Tim riley talk 09:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's okay, if one of us ever finds more info on it then I'm sure it'll find a place... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Brilliant work on the article of one of Hollywood's most esteemed actors. Hope to see it promoted. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 14:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support and your kind words. Tim riley talk 15:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.