Talk:Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

SeatPlan ref

The new SeatPlan ref seems to be commercial spam. I suggest deleting the new additions: If something hasn't changed, you don't need to say so. Moreover, all theatres offer seats at various prices throughout the house, so it's a trivial statement that does not add anything. I do not watch this page, but I watch other London theatres, and this IP has been adding lots of commercial spam links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

First fire sprinkler system in the world?

Fire_sprinkler_system#History claims (though a citation is missing) that Theatre Royal, Drury Lane was the first place where a (non-automatic) fire sprinkler system was ever installed, in 1812. If this is indeed true, it is notable for the article here as well, and the two articles should cross-reference each other. Searching the Theatre Royal article for the word "fire" reveals that the structure burned down at least twice (in 1672 and in 1809), significant landmarks in the history of the building. The fact that the third version of the Theatre is still standing may be a vindication of the fire suppression system(s) installed there. Was the original sprinkler system ever activated? Was it ever replaced or supplemented, and are there any original elements from the sprinkler remaining? Could somebody better equipped to research this either verify or disprove the historic claim, and modify the article(s) accordingly? -- Reify-tech (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/the-producers-drury-lane.html

  Triggered by \bstay[\w-]*\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary

Hi folks, I don't feel as if we need the "Theatre Royal Drury Lane 350th Anniversary" section. At most, this could be included in the text, but I'm not eager on that idea either. I would like to see this footnoted as it certainly isn't important enough to qualify for its own section, thoughts? Cassianto^talk 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Refimprove template added

Hi everyone: I have added a Refimprove template, as significant portions of content remain unverified. The following is an example:

The picture-frame-like separation between audience and performance was a new phenomenon in English theatre, though it had been found on the Continent earlier. However, theatre design in London remained ambivalent about the merits of the "picture-box" stage, and for many decades to come, London theatres including Drury Lane had large forestages protruding beyond the arch, often including the thrust stages found in the Elizabethan theatres. The players could still step forward and bridge the distance between performer and audience, and in addition, it was not unusual for audience members to mount the stage themselves.

I am not just being "lazy," as a copyeditor has stated—this can be verified by viewing my editing history—but please let me know if you think this template is unwarranted. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The {{refimprove}} template seems too vague and general for an article of this standard. Please use more specific templates such as {{cn}} to tag particular passages if they seem to need more support. Andrew (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Andrew.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I did that, but they were removed, so what next?--Soulparadox (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I will add the tags while I await further guidance, but yes, they were removed—the rationale was that it is a feature article. So feature articles do not need ot be verified? Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your tag pinning was, IMO, lazy and a simple note on the talk page would have been sufficient enough to generate someone into sourcing the information that you yourself couldn't be bothered to find. I think you'll also find that you won't make any allies by going around tagging featured content; if you have a problem with a featured article, or in fact any article come to that, either approach the primary author if it has one, make an enquiry on the talk page, or research the information yourself. I think you'll find people's "tone" a bit more light and fluffy if you adopted either of those alternatives. Cassianto^talk 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the template removal as well; several editors are now in the process of working on this as shown in the recent article history. Personally I believe a modicum of respect should be given to the extensive work done by the previous editors who initially brought this to FA standard. If we are unable to bring it back up to standard, rest assured we will take it to FAR for a proper re-assessment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure of what was disrespectful? Wouldn't it be more disrespectful to allow unverified content to remain? My intention was not to be disrespectful, as you will see from my editing history. I am merely trying to make Wikipedia encyclopedic. Please do not misinterpret my actions. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. If anyone else can offer guidance, it will be most welcomed. I do not wish to cast aspersions or be disrespectful—I just want to make this article encyclopedic. I am struggling with Cassianto's tone—I understand that this may be due to subjective issues—so the contributions of other copyeditors will help. Again, this is not a personal matter to me, as I am just trying to contribute to an encyclopedic online resource. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Soulparadox, by simply adding tags you are allowing unverified content to remain. You have doing nothing to try and fix the problem, only to make it someone else's. Cassianto^talk 10:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not trying to make allies or friends, as I don't see Wikipedia as a social network or game—again, I just want to contribute to the development of an encyclopedic resource. Can we hear from other copyeditors? Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But two other copyeditors in this discussion requested the addition of tags?--Soulparadox (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed to this article, and I am happy to do more, but I added the tags so that others can also help.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the large banner template again and one {{cn}} tag - even FA doesn't require refs after commas unless it's for a quotation. Soulparadox, is it really worth edit warring over a template? Our time would be better spent looking for the refs and attempting to sort the article out, surely? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not wish to war either, but the rationale is insufficient. The template is warranted simply because there are significant sections of content that are not verified. As I said, I am happy to undertake the research, but readers need to know in the meantime that this article is not yet completely verified. I think it is unethical to publish data in an encyclopedic resource that is not verified. People use Wikipedia for media articles, research, etc., so I think it is important to maintain the integrity of the resource. I am not trying to attack anyone at all! Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD Soulparadox, do not keep reverting. Cassianto^talk 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am merely trying to await further discussion, which you are most welcome to contribute to. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If there are any admin or other copyeditors reading, please feel free to contribute. I am more than happy to remove the template, but the rationale thus far is insufficient. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Copying message from my talk page to keep all discussions in one place: Hello, I mean no disrespect, but you acknowledged that your contribution to the discussion is "personal". So can we await further discussion? If you hold an authoritative position at Wikipedia that I am not aware of, then I apologize. Please let me know what your position is, so that I can further my learning. Thank you sir/madam.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my comment appears to have been mis-interpreted; by using "personally" I meant it was my personal opinion. Obviously I hold no position of authority - quite the opposite in fact! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just added several references, and so have a couple of other editors. I understand that Cassianto is working to reference the remaining unreferenced info, so this discussion should become moot soon. In the meantime, the places where citations are still needed are clearly marked, and so no additional tags are needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Soulparadox: I think that there may be some misunderstanding about the purpose of tags: they are definitely not to let readers know that the content is 'unverified' - in fact, only quotations and content that is challenged requires verification. The purpose of tags is actually to attract more editors to fix problems that have become apparent. Looked at from that perspective, half-a-dozen editors have been working on the article for the last few days, and - I assure you of this - any more will not make improvements go any faster. What my colleagues are trying to tell you is that they're on the case and the tags just aren't needed right now. If you're interested in improving the article, by all means do some research and look for fresh sources; join in either on the article or on talk to suggest new content or good references that may be added. But please, don't add any tags while editors are actively working on the article: it just doesn't add value. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur 100% with RexxS. Soulparadox, this is everything that I have been trying to say to you but have failed in my communication. It's probably my fault, so I apologise for that. Cassianto^talk 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly RexxS, as your comment has allowed me to comprehend the situation clearly! I typically try to use these interactions to learn as much as I can, and you have added to my Wikipedia knowledge. Thank you and, as this page is on my Watchlist, I will do my best to contribute to its development, along with the other pages that I work on. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Has work come to a standstill? There are still some unresolved tags on the article. Should it now be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review? DrKay (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Things are slow, but progress is in motion. Hold off for FAR at the moment. Cassianto^Talk 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Clara Fisher

I removed mention of this child actress from the Lead, because she is not mentioned at all in the body of the article. Her own article makes only one mention of Drury Lane. Is she important enough in the history of the theatre to be discussed below? I doubt it, but if so, someone needs to find appropriate refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree. Cassianto^Talk 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WW II and later productions

Since WWII, the theatre has hosted a series of very long-running Musicals, beginning with Oklahoma!, which had the longest run of any production at the theatre up to that time. I have found references for these for the body of the article and also mentioned the ones with historic long runs in the Lead. My Fair Lady, when it closed, had the 2nd-longest run in West End history, and Miss Saigon had the longest run ever at the theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghosts

Does this warrant its own section? There's a lot of editorial and vague language in there and it's a subjective topic anyway. Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It most definitely does in my opinion, and I'm pleased to see it here. Eric Corbett 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

How do we get around WP:ALLEGED? I'll bet my last pound someone mentions it at FAR. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What has alleged got to do with it? I often include ghost sections in castles or stately homes, as in Little Moreton Hall, and nobody ever complains at FAC. It's just a matter of how it's written. As I read somewhere recently, the question of whether or not ghosts exist is a pointless one, as people clearly report seeing something. The only question is, what is it that they see? Eric Corbett 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just my opinion but I think it's too much of a subjective topic. But we agree to disagree on that one as my view is also subjective; It's lasted all this time, so let's keep it and see how it goes. My ping to WP:ALLEGED was in reference to the use of vague words such as "said to", "supposed", "allegedly" etc. My question upon reading words such as these would be who said this, who supposed this, who alleged this? Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything is subjective, that's the world we live in. But not to mention the "alleged" ghosts would be to compromise the comprehensiveness of this article. Eric Corbett 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I recently had trouble at the FAC with the "ghosts" section of Bramshill House. Sometimes I wonder if we should really cover it in detail, but I suppose legends are part of the coverage of a place and are worth a summary to make it comprehensive. I do think there's a balance needed though. Two paragraphs I think is reasonable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I rather like the 'Hauntings' section ... perhaps once we manage to sort out the rest this could even be expanded a little bit? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Eric: I have now got a copy of W. J. MacQueen-Pope's 1945 book "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane"; he has a few pages about the ghost. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  Excellent! Eric Corbett 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I recently listened to a guide telling a crowd in Macklin Street the story of Charles Macklin and he mentioned that they have a special tour of theatrical ghosts for this and other local theatres. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Second theatre 1674

I feel the main problem area in this article is the section 'Second theatre: 1674', especially the first five paragraphs, many of which are unreferenced. My suggestion would be to delete those paragraphs then add a shorter paragraph (or two) stating it was generally assumed the Theatre was built to the Wren design but in the 20th-21st-century [several?] academics have challenged that. What do others feel about it? The sentence "according to Robert D. Hume (2007, the most highly regarded scholar of theatres and play performance during the long eighteenth-century)" definitely has to go anyway ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am travelling until Thursday and can't do it now, but can someone look back to when the article passed FAC and see what has happened to those paragraphs since then? Were they originally referenced? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to re-check as it's evidently felt necessary but as far as I could see all of the paragraphs I referred to were added a long time after the article passed FAC - but fine, I get your message so will undo the edits I made - I was simply trying to help and/or address the problems I saw. My apologies for intruding. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that a lot of work was done while I was away, but that there is still some material that is uncited. Phil, do you still find that any of the material is dubious, or is it merely a question of finding the refs to support it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you wish it to remain as it is, which I strongly disagree with as I feel it is not neutral and gives undue emphasis, the reference you would need to use is this self published book, by Mark Howell, (who I believe is a non-academic) published in 2013. In this version of the article I tried to give a brief neutral piece about the "Wren drawing"; I also tweaked the caption under the sketch in an attempt to show both sides of the debate. At present in my opinion, Wikipedia is categorically stating the sketch is wrong based on the edits of editors who made the additions 7 Jan 2011 by Markhowellmeri; 17 Nov 2011 by Markhowell1688; scroll down to the bottom of this edit by an IP on 10 Feb 2012; and 10 Feb 2012 by Markhowell4000. An editor, DavidThomas104, appears to have attempted to tone down the POV 1 Feb 2013 here. Also have a look at his edit summary here on 1 Feb 2013. Please read fully through what is presently ref #25, which is what I believe he was trying to remove. Markhowell1688 also added an unsigned notice to the image description on 12 Dec 2011.

One of the books I have acquired is Richard Leacroft's 1973 "The Development of the English Playhouse". In it he states: A longitudinal section through a playhouse designed by Wren has a measured length of approximately 113 feet, which is sufficiently close to the known length of the site of the first theatre. Whether it is the design finally adopted is not known, and it has been argued that as the drawing had twice been torn across it had been discarded, but at least some of the features shown appear in later authenticated drawings of this theatre, and it may by now be safely assumed that, even if the precise details are not as built, in the main this section can be taken to indicate the general appearance of Wren's Drury Lane as finally constructed in 1674. on page 89. While some academics have questioned the sketch, they have couched it in a very reserved manner. I have a copy of Langhans 1966 article "Pictorial Material on the Bridges Street and Drury Lane Theatres"; Tim Keenan's article is available via Questia and Robert Hume's article can be read on page 23 here. This by an academic in 2012 may also be worth a read - he states there is a: convincing argument that it represents the Theatre Royal Drury Lane of 1674.

Of course, everyone else may read all this completely differently! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've cut it down a bit. Personally, I would also cut the names of the academics and just have "scholars" keeping the detail in the footnote, but otherwise it is relevant to the article topic and so should not be cut totally. I do think it can be shorn down more though, the dimensions for example are repeated in two separate paragraphs. Apart from comments above on verifiability, which are addressable since the sources are available, the prose needs examining. Some of the later material has been inserted without much thought as to how it fits in to the flow of the text. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Re: the paragraph starting "The King's Company never recovered ... ..." with the citation needed tag. It's always difficult to find refs when you're trying to interpret the words of others but MacQueen Pope has: "Things were going from bad to worse at Old Drury. At the beginning of the year 1681, the brothers Killigrew could not meet their debts and for a time the theatre closed down." (p. 64); "[Killigrew] at once set about raising money to rebuild Drury Lane. He was not in too good shape in that direction. ... ... Indeed early in 1663, before his first playhouse opened, he had already assigned his shares elsewhere. He borrowed £950 on them in 1673 and negotiated another loan in the same year for £1,600. This did not make for financial stability when the new house was finally opened." (p. 57); and "Killigrew, of course, held the all-powerful Charter or Patent, but he had mortgaged it for the building fund. The cost of the building was about £4,000, which sum probably included the scene room". (p. 59). The details of the MacQueen Pope book are already in the Bibliography. The ODNB entry for Charles Hart, I'm assuming others have access to it but if not, I can always copy the relevant section here, also touches on the selling of shares and the "King's Company was fading fast". Perhaps that helps a little bit? (ping DrKay). SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is 'way too much information about the Theatre Royal Bristol. Is all of it supported by the sources given, or is any of it WP:OR? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of it is OR. I've been trying to check the sources: Nagler, p.208, ref#33, supports the quote but doesn't mention Bristol; the Survey of London, ref#32, also doesn't mention Bristol. I've been trying to access The Georgian Playhouse (1948). Stone, pp. 80–81 (ref#30, 31 & 34) without success - does anyone else have access to it? I do have a copy of the Stone & Kahrl 1979 Garrick biography that I'll have a flick through to see if it might offer anything on it but it's not an easy read. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, for working on that, Phil. If it is all OR, and you don't see any easily accessible sources that support the assertion, we should remove all the Bristol comparisons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation

The first 'citation needed' tag at the end of the fourth paragraph of the 'First theatre: Theatre Royal, Bridges Street (1663)' section is covered in Walter Macqueen-Pope's 1945 book "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, publisher Allen, page 33. If you wish me to type the wording here so you can verify, please let me know. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the book to the list of sources at the bottom and put the short cite in the text at the end of the paragraph you mentioned. Please check that I put it in the place you meant. I did not include the url since the google book text is not available. You don't need to type it out, as the factoid is not very controversial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage vs. Historic England

Please explain why these changes were suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rtheatre/Front.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Old Playbills

Maybe these links are interesting for anybody. They show an old advertisement from 1776 ( http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/framed-advertisement-for-the-theatre-royal-in-dru-235-c-9db4ccd92b?campaign=rr ) and an old playbill advertising Clarkson Stanfields Diorama from 1830: http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/stanfield-s-diorama-a-double-playbill-for-the-th-705-c-44b4e99b14?campaign=rr
Maybe it would make sense to add Stanfield in the article, as he worked in the theater for severeal years.
Cheers! --74albia (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080312185654/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/murray/Restoration/Theatres/Recon.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080419052257/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/murray/Restoration/Theatres/Theatres.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080419052257/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/murray/Restoration/Theatres/Theatres.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stgite.org.uk/media/judges.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111101604/http://louisjullien.site.voila.fr/ to http://louisjullien.site.voila.fr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225224/http://www.fownc.org/newsletters/no45.shtml to http://www.fownc.org/newsletters/no45.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Image

Instead of author unknown, this could be here so someone with interest and knowledge in this FA could use this information to update the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

As part of the continuing sweeps of old FAs, I checked through this article, promoted in 2006, to see if it still meets criteria. Overall it's in remarkable shape, but I had some thoughts on a once-over:

• As someone who isn’t a theater buff in general or of London theater history in particular, there were passages where the text lost me. E.g. The King's Company was forced to commission the technically advanced and expensive Theatre Royal playhouse by the success of the rival Duke's Company,—this new playhouse comes out of nowhere, there's no date for when this was, and I'm left confused what exactly this means. At first I thought this was the second theater on the site, which was clearly incorrect. So was this another stage in the building? A revamp?
• There are places throughout where the tone of the article doesn't entirely feel encyclopedic—whether it's calling the sons "crooks", or asking questions of the reader in The motivation behind building on such a large scale?
  • It's really weird to me that we spend two paragraphs detailing first, a drawing that is argued is not actually the playhouse, and then the supposed design of the playhouse, before we actually explain the context for the second playhouse being constructed. Some rejiggering of this section I think would help it flow better.
  • The King's Company never recovered financially from the loss of the old Theatre Royal Bridges Street. The cost of constructing the new theatre, replacing their costumes and scenery lost in the fire and competitive pressure from the rival Duke's Company contributed to its decline. Eventually, in 1682, the King's Company merged with the Duke's. This doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph, which continues the earlier discussion of the design, and feels out of place. We don't discuss history in the 1680s until much later in the section, where we get repetition of the merger information.
  • ...when the patent in question there's no patent in question; patents haven't been mentioned aside from the name of the company in paragraphs. I assume this is the monopolistic patent mentioned early on in the formation, but it's unclear.
  • (see Robert Lowe in his edition of Cibber's Apology) No idea what this aside is about; if it's supposed to be a reference, it shouldn't be parenthetical.
  • The "very popular notion that our theatres ought to be very small" proved hard to overcome. Who said this?
  • It seems odd we get very little about the design of the modern building aside from the seating capacity.
  • Information about the theater is extremely detailed until the 1930s and then it drops off a cliff. It seems unlikely all the notable history of the theater in the last near 100 years is covered in three paragraphs.
  • I don't quite get the structure of the "Major productions" section; which ones get mentioned in prose versus just (or additionally listed out) doesn't make much sense to me.
  • There's some passages that seem unsourced.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)