Restoration spectacular is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2006. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
It's impossible. They're a decade apart. Geogre 22:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How much? A ballpark figure is fine, too. I have no idea what numbers would be considered normal for such a performance.
I can't help but think some of these Restoration folks would've made a smash in Vegas. JRM · Talk 17:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this sentence correct? "The public stage ban 1642–1660 imposed by the Puritan regime represents a long and sharp break in dramatic tradition, but was still never completely successful in suppressing the ideologically hateful make-believe of play-acting." Is "ideologically hateful" what is really meant here? -- Xyzzyplugh 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
This is a very enjoyable article with plenty of encyclopedia-appropriate humour. House of Scandal 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Whilst i don't really know anything about this subject there are areas in the general critera that to me are of concern:
Could someone check to see if i haven't missed anything? Simply south ( talk) 14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm busy IRL. I'll respond in a day or a few. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
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)
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)
How were such effects produced, and how did they look? The crocodile etc. obviously used the floor trap...are inappropriately WP:RHETORICAL. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 14:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Restoration spectacular is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2006. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
It's impossible. They're a decade apart. Geogre 22:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How much? A ballpark figure is fine, too. I have no idea what numbers would be considered normal for such a performance.
I can't help but think some of these Restoration folks would've made a smash in Vegas. JRM · Talk 17:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this sentence correct? "The public stage ban 1642–1660 imposed by the Puritan regime represents a long and sharp break in dramatic tradition, but was still never completely successful in suppressing the ideologically hateful make-believe of play-acting." Is "ideologically hateful" what is really meant here? -- Xyzzyplugh 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
This is a very enjoyable article with plenty of encyclopedia-appropriate humour. House of Scandal 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Whilst i don't really know anything about this subject there are areas in the general critera that to me are of concern:
Could someone check to see if i haven't missed anything? Simply south ( talk) 14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm busy IRL. I'll respond in a day or a few. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
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)
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)
How were such effects produced, and how did they look? The crocodile etc. obviously used the floor trap...are inappropriately WP:RHETORICAL. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 14:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)