Overall: The first hook seems most attractive and has been checked out thoroughly. It's the one that works best with the picture as I like the way that it identifies all the people. I haven't been able to run Earwig yet and want to do so as there's a lot of quotations and plot to consider. There are also some copy-editing niggles such as some Americanisms and the crooked lead image but I may take care of those myself pending the final review. (<later>I've made a copy-editing pass and run Earwig and it's reasonably good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Andrew. I agree that the first hook is far and away the best one, with or without the image (though obviously much better with it). I would appreciate any and all copy-editing edits from you, especially for the Americanisms; I tried my best to conform to British English standards, but my eye for it is by no means perfect. Hopefully Earwig will be up and running shortly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was the centre/center spelling that caught my eye. I'm making a copy-editing pass through the article and addressing some pleonasm and other issues too. Feel free to push back if you disagree. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
All excellent suggestions/fixes; I have a tendency for unnecessary periphrasis. I pushed back on minor quibbles – mostly with the plot and character descriptions, having spent quite some time reading and re-reading the play – but I believe all the changes should still be well in line with British standards. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The Earwig score was 3% which is negligible. The extensive quotes and lengthy synopsis are debatable but I don't consider these to be show-stoppers and so we can move forward. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)