I know that there was at least one highly-critical review in a secondary source I saw somewhere but I can't seem to find it at the moment. If someone else does feel free to either put it here on the talk page, or add it to the Reviews section in the same formatting style as the others. Smee07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Removal of unsourced material
Prev edits by anon ip are confusing, and also not only removed sourced material from the article, but added unsourced material to the article. Please discuss here. Smee03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
GA Review
Well-written: Fail
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass
This article passes everything except for the reviews section, which is currently broken up into individual reviews is a listy format. The section should be prose paragraphs in one whole "reception" section, possible organized by critique than reviewer, though that's more optional. Also, the lead has too many redlinks, either de-link or wrote articles for the theaters. Message me on my talk page for a quick re-review at any time. --PresN16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I will implement all of the suggestions you have suggested, and message you soon for a re-review. Thank you for your time and helpful pointers! Yours, Smee17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
*22 citations, 2 pictures, could use expansion of synopsis and more images of costumes/characters from play itself. Passed as GA on (4 June 2007). Smee20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
Last edited at 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)