Talk:Restoration spectacular

message: Congratulations.
If you want any pictures, I've added some to Augustan drama that might be useful.  (I also uncovered a very interesting bit of evidence that suggests a whole story.  Rich's Covent Garden opens in 1732, and its first play is The Way of the World.  Hogarth does a print satirizing Cibber, Wilks, etc. in their attempt to out-do Rich, in A Just View of the Modern Stage, and the toilet paper being used in that rehearsal is the script of The Way of the World.  A mini-sermon suggesting that the Drury Lane folks are so obsessed with beating Rich that they've forgotten what Rich hasn't -- to put on real plays when you can and trash when you can't?  The other plays being used for toilet paper are probably references to other Lincoln's Inn Fields/Covent Garden performances, too.  While the patent theaters observed the patent system, all of those plays would "belong" to somebody, and this belonging (e.g. Hamlet belonging to Duke's, then onward to Drury Lane), and perhaps there is a suggestion there, too?)  Geogre 04:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It's impossible.  They're a decade apart. Geogre 22:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disregard conspiracy theory 

message: From the section titled 1690's - Opera.  "While the monopoly United Company's takings were being bled off by Davenant's shyster sons"
That's hardly a NPOV term.  Care to fix it?
--Capnned 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a descriptive term for the way they acted. I've added an inline reference. Bishonen | talk 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shyster Sons 

message: This is a very enjoyable article with plenty of encyclopedia-appropriate humour. House of Scandal 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bravo

message: Whilst i don't really know anything about this subject there are areas in the general critera that to me are of concern:
*there are not enough citations, some paragraphs are wholly without sources
*refs 11, 12 and 13. Reference 11 does not appear to be a proper reference, there is no text reference and it appears to be based on digrams, although which ones are unclear. Ref 12 does not seem to make sense, Ref 13 is shown as a deadlink. 
*Maybe some more information on possible revivals as a separate, if small, section to balance things. 
Could someone check to see if i haven't missed anything? Simply south (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen and Giano, who wrote this, are still very much with us; you should probably notify them of this if you haven't already. – iridescent 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 years on 

message: *Theatrical things were trade secrets etc, quotes from Samuel Pepys diary and about the Duke's Company, multiple quotes through the Changeable scenery section, how more grand and expensive the Dorset garden plays were and where they were located. Also the last 2 paragraphs. Especially examples of revivals that have tried to happen. For ref 12, it would be good if there were page numbers showing where which particular information was said. If 11 could point out the specific models it is referring to othterwise this could be considered (and does to me otherwise) as WP:OR. Simply south (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where

message: I'm busy IRL. I'll respond in a day or a few. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Later

message: This article is no longer meeting the Featured article criteria in a couple of areas. The overall lack of citations is the largest issue. There are sources listed that have not been used for the notes section. Most of the image files need further information and correct license tags. MOS:Images is also a problem. Brad (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this a personal opinion piece? The style is like an op-ed page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenGreenPond (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article concerns 

message: This article uses very flowery language at times, I'm suprised this is still a featured article. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: can you provide specific examples? Particularly ones that differ from ? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrases like "hit the London public stage" and "enthralling audiences" and "never ashamed" and "unprecedented numbers" and "dazzled and delighted" all sound inappropriately casual or breathless for an encyclopedia, more like an over-enthusiastic reviewer in a newspaper column. -- Beland (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Given these problems, this article should probably go to WP:FAR, unless someone wants to take a stab at cleaning it up. -- Beland (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR, major contributors: User:Bishonen, User:Geogre, User:Bunchofgrapes. -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "neutral" is misused here.  In Wikipedia it means neutral between rival interpretations, and I think it is neutral.  It's talking about special theatrical effects that ALL RS say were indeed awesome for audiences, so they are appropriate for the topic.  Rjensen (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Looks like some of this has been dealt with since, but skimming the article there are still some florid idioms ("prying loose" an actor, a play "stuffed" with special effects), inappropriate statements of "clearly" and "of course", and lines like  are inappropriately WP:RHETORICAL. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneutral language