Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
A fact from An Old Score appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November2009. The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that W. S. Gilbert's first full-length comedy, An Old Score, was unsuccessful partly because Victorian audiences would not accept a scene in which a son argues with his father?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'm puzzled by the reference (no. 11 at present) to 'Oxenford, John. "Review of An Old Score", The Times review, 28 July 1869'. The review, which I have before me, is not signed (nor would one expect it to be, as Times reviews were anonymous until the 1960s) and moreover John Oxenford was a playwright, and not - as far as I know - a critic. The text of the review is correctly quoted in the article (in both extracts) but the citation seems wrong. I'd suggest: "Gaiety Theatre", The Times, 28 July 1869, p. 10. - Tim riley (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Later - I see Oxenford was, in fact, also a critic, and for The Times, at that. But is there any external evidence that he was the critic who wrote that review? Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
p. 10. I'd still prefer to see some evidence that Oxenford wrote the review. Trutt gives no citation for stating that he did. It is very possibly a reasonable assumption that Oxenford wrote it, but some actual evidence would be welcome. - Tim riley (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
