Wikipedia:Peer review/Theatre Royal, Drury Lane/archive1

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane[edit]

One of the most important theatres in London since the Restoration period. Looking for areas of improvement before FAC-ing. I'm sure I must have missed plenty of crucial points in the 350 years of history I've tried to cover. I know the lead's short, and ideas about what else should be in there would be great. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, although I'm not a regular on FAC so I've probably missed stuff that they will pick up upon. One thing though is the red link to patent theatres in the intro. Might be an idea to create a stub as its not obvious what they are until the middle of the article. RicD o d 10:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is something I've been meaning to do, but haven't gotten around to yet. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks lovely! I'll take a good look later. But it seems to me that you run into the Same Knife problem a bit. Owner repairs the knife by putting a new haft on it; next owner repairs it again, by putting a new blade on it. Is it in any sense still the same knife? The physical playhouse is destroyed by fire and rebuilt from the ground up a number of times; the enterprise or "company" starts over from scratch a number of times. So in what sense is this the same theatre? The name? The street? Indeed, what is "*a* theatre"? I'm not putting this forward as an objection to having an article about the Theatre Royal, you understand. I think it's great that we now have one. More as something that I would look for having explicated/defined up front. Perhaps indeed in the lead section, where you say the Theatre Royal "is a theatre" but then go on to speak of the present theatre being the last in a line of different theatres that "opened in 1663 (burned down in 1672), 1674 (demolished in 1791) and 1794 (burned down in 1809)". How many knives are there? (Three?) Bishonen | talk 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Yeah. I can recall raising a similar issue when Michigan State Capitol was at FAC -- what's this article about three buildings really about? At least in the case of Drury Lane, I can take some consolation in the fact that all four buildings stood on pretty much the same spot. Perhaps I should move the article to Real Estate on the Corner of Catherine (ex-Bridges) Street and Drury Lane, London. (No?) Certainly I'll ponder better defining the topic in the lead. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on a truely marvelous article! Your work has certainly paid off and you included the ghosts! I made a few minor corrections here and there. The only thing that I see missing is about how the theatre acquired it's name as the Theatre Royal. The first paragraph under the First theatre section states it was called the Theatre in Bridges Street but then the final sentence refers to it as the Theatre Royal. I will check the Oxford Companion to the Theatre as I think it has an explanation. I'll do it once I get home from work. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ganymead! That's a good point about the naming; I think in point of fact the "official" name of the place was largly undefined in the early days, but maybe I'm incorrect about that. I saw your edits, they were good, especially fixing the Joseph Grimaldi link... as for "Humerous", I blame that blackguard Pepys for letting me down with his poor spelling ability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm home and i've consulted Oxford. I swear it explained the name, but I can't find it. It may be in the Cambridge Guide to Theatre which I will take a look at during my rehearsal in a few minutes. After reading the entry in Oxford, I've noticed a few details and things that you may consider expanding on or including. Once I get back from rehearsal, I'll note those on the articles talk page for you to consider including. One point I did notice was that Oxford spells the street "Brydges", I know spelling was a bit dodgey (sp?) in that era, but do all of your sources use "Bridges"? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixture. See footnote 2's mention of that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the spelling at the time was all over the place, but my modern sources seem to agree on using "Bridges". (Apparently the Oxford Companion has its own idea about it, I hadn't looked there.) Bishonen | talk 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm back from rehearsal. I printed out the article and read it while waiting (a long time) to go onstage. After re-reading it, it's still a marvelous article, but I think it's missing a few things. The article really seems to concentrate on the building and it's managers with some (but still too little, IMHO) discussion of performances. Certainly, the number of plays that premiered there (including Bish's...I mean, Vanbrugh's The Relapse) is impressive and the number of famous actors treading its boards is outstanding. Comparing your article with the lengthy article in the Oxford Companion, probably 1 quarter of the Oxford article discusses performances while I would say your article comprises less. In addition, there are a number of interesting details that Oxford points out that I think could fatten the article up a bit. I'll pull out those facts and leave them on the article's talk page this evening. Oh, and one other thing, I think when this goes to FAC, you'll be asked to expand the intro. Ok, off to the article talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good ideas. One reason I've skimped on the players and performances is that I've felt a little unable to determine which actors and plays were the notable ones deserving of mention and which would just look like strange trivia. Certainly my discussion of plays is completely imbalanced toward ones with rushing water or galloping horses right now (what!? No monkeys?!). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coupla minor image points: if you'd care for more info about the famous Hogarth portrait of Garrick as Richard III (Cibber's "adapted" Richard), there is some at the smaller version Image:Garrick as RichardIII.1743.jpg. Here's a little rather nice commentary on the painting on the Walker Gallery site. And can I interest you in an ugly pic of the first performance at the 1674 theatre? It's undynamic and dull, but still, I suppose it's somewhat hisorically, even though not hysterically, interesting. (A French opera, briefly accounted for in the "Obliged to the French" subsection in Restoration spectacular). Bishonen | talk 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm very interested in that picture; where's it from? What play is it, is it Psyche? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ariadne, see bolded text above. From here. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

About players and performances: no galloping horses or dancing real live monkeys, but would you like me to add a few lines on the plays of the 1660s and 70s at Drury Lane, before the 1682 merger? It's just 20 years out of 350, I know, but those 20 years saw more important new plays than did, say, 1700—1850. Drury Lane was the home of talk drama, in counterpoint to the Duke's Company's emphasis on spectacle, scenery, "opera", and machines. As I point out in Restoration spec, Davenant and Betterton of the Duke's Company were hugely more successful than the King's Company at Drury Lane, which was riven by conflict between powerful actors at odds with management and with each other (Michael Mohun and Charles Hart especially). And Killigrew was always being wrong-footed by Davenant's greater initiative and energy. There were good reasons the King's ended up getting eaten by the Duke's. But what I don't mention in Rest spec, which I see as going nicely here, is the other side of the coin: the fantastic dialogue-driven Restoration comedies, now classics, that were being produced at Drury Lane. Especially the very first seasons of the 1674 theatre are miraculous, with George Etherege's The Man of Mode and William Wycherley's The Country Wife (an, ahem, Featured article) and The Plain Dealer. In plays like these, also, the strengths of the obstreperous Drury Lane actors made them co-creators of the distinctive kind of repartee — Charles Hart and Nell Gwyn are credited especially. Of course you could perfectly well do this yourself, with the help especially of articles Restoration comedy and The Country Wife (which has a potentially useful bit about some important Drury Lane actors). Most of the other stuff I've linked here is unreconstructed 1911 EB, to my shame. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I'd be delighted if you'd add such material; any imbalance it creates toward 1660-1680 should be rectified by adding more elsewhere, after all. It's clear to me that Gwynn and Hart are among the players worth mentioning here. I'll have to remember to read through The Country Wife -- I think I've missed that one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed my flagship? You toy with Bishzilla? You dance with death! Bishonen | talk 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    - Before my time! Hee hee those Restoration Londoners were so very naughty ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's it, you're already dead! Bishonen | talk 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        Perhaps, once I finish Mr. Garrick I'll be willing to help y'all clean up Mr. Wycherly. Let's hear it for collaboration! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]