I am very tempted to fail the article, but given that it is rather short & of limited scope (which would indicate it would be rather quick to fix it), I am giving it a benefit of a doubt. Concerns:
Content: much left to be desired.
Why was this incident of any notability/significance? What did it change? Why people keep writing about it?
Not sure I could answer that without original research. Works discuss it, but few say why. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Clifhangger ending: "when the rebelling actors finally won the dispute". What? When? How?
"were problems with the management of the theatre" - what problems? The article says a couple plays failed. Why? Bad actors? Poor plays? Expensive tickets? Not enough promotion? Incompetent logistics? How failing plays were related to management problems?
Sources merely say management problems and leave it at that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"complicated by illnesses" - what illness? From the article would seem like an epidemic.
It was. I think I clarified. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Theophilus Cibber was disputing with John Highmore and John Ellys" - who are these three people? What were they disputing? Why?
I expanded some on the background so I think it now makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"letter to Benjamin Victor" - who is he?
Source does not say nor is there a Wiki page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Highmore approached Colley" - full name of Highmore?
Highmore's name is already provided in full once, which is all per MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"many of the actors were upset and joined with Theophilus" - why? Why would the actors care who are the shareholders? One big head replaces another... That's the most serious omission. Not a single "sin" of the management is named.
No scholar really knows, and I added some mention towards that point. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"which made it impossible for him to work as an actor" - why? what does "removed permanently from the theatre" mean?
It means you are removed from the theatre and not allowed to returned. Another term would be black listed, banned, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Charles Woods believed" - who is he?
A scholar and now mentioned as to such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So what happened with the lease? Did rebelling actors ever return?
Prose: not as smooth as it could be.
"control the theatre" repeated 3 times in the first 2 sentences.
Describing people as "lesser quality"... just had a bad connotation
It is meant to. They were reputed to be absolutely horrible actors. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Product -> "quality", people -> "experience", "talent", "skill", etc.
"holders of one of two licenses" - took me 2 minutes to understand
"He first tried to work" - who is "he" referring to?
"organize the actors in rebellion" - awkward
"in tehir Direction" - typo?
"stated, in an article by Philo Dramaticus, attacked the management" - awkward. who attacked?
"Theophilus Cibber emphases the inability" - past tense throughout, please. There are other places too.
"tried to then filed" - huh?
"Within the response, Theophilus Cibber emphases the inability of the management to effectively run the theatre, believed that the management was controlling things as tyrants, and that the management unjustly refused the offer by the actors to rent out the patent." - "management" repeated 3 times
"any attacks upon them" - upon who?
"many of the problems that the actors complained about originated with earlier actors" - awkward
"Henry Fielding joined their side of the dispute" - whose side?
"the 15 loyal actors" - how many non-loyal?
"many nobles, including their family, in attendance." - whose family?
More wikification & wikilinks wold definitely not hurt.
References: books need ISBN or OCLC numbers.
Possibly other issues, but I just had half hour to look at it. Renata (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Yes, the article is much better and makes a lot more sense. Couple other things to clarify:
"After problems within the government over the patent" - what problems? The previous sentence said that the patent would be issued. Is it missing "not" somewhere in there?
As far as I can tell, the specific problems were unknown. The previous sentence was a report that the patent would be issued, but it was not. Hume says "This order was cancelled, and written again in 15 May 1731. On 3 July 1731 the patent was drafted, but then seems to have stuck in the government machinery, where it remained nine months." I couldn't find any greater details, which means basically no explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Took the liberty to clarify & simplify. Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"attacked Theophilus and criticized the fact that he was kept from buying into the theatre's management." - does that mean Hill attacked both sides? If he indeed took "middle of the road" position, then the sentence should be more balances. Like "attacked both Theophilus and other managers" or "attacked Theophilus because ... and criticized other managers because..."
The he is Hill. Hill would not criticize that Hill was denied something. The only suitable option is the pronoun. I rearranged the two items so there will be no more confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Whose son Theophilus was and who was he renting the shares from? In one place "who then authorised Ellys, a painter, to serve in her place. In reaction to the changing partners, he rented his share to his son Theophilus, an actor." in another "News of Colley's selling of the shares to Highmore... Theophilus was upset that his father sold the share to Highmore instead of continuing to rent it out to himself"
Theophilus Cibber was Colley Cibber's son. I fixed the first sentence quoted. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but please be aware of this weakness in your writing. Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"letter to Benjamin Victor" - who is he and how is he involved? There is such a thing as Google :) Recommend looking through Google books.
Google would not help as the sources do not mention his relationship. I could not find a source about the 1733 Actor Rebellion that explained it and I wouldn't want to enter into the realm of OR. Regardless, the name is merely there to denote the -letter-, as the recipient of the letter would not matter. I could remove the name if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I would not be so against-Google. I found the relationship in less than 2 minutes. Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"received license of sorts" - what is that? legal term or "a sort of license"?
It wasn't a real license. Rewrote the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"criticism in the 29 September 1733 for issuing" - in what? incomplete sentence.
Not addressed. I would assume some sort of newspaper. Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"letter to John Mills" - who is he?
Same as above, not explained in sources so would be OR. Name merely denotes the specific letter and nothing more is necessary. If you do not like the name, I could easily change it to "in a letter" or just not say where the statements came from at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Found him too. One of rebelling actors. Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"the case fell apart before it was ever heard" - yet you later say there was a trial on 12 November
Different cases. One was the management trying the actors. The other was the actors trying the management. Another was one particular individual tried. The 12 November case is denoted as "in which the rebellious actors sued the management". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Agh. Ok. I guess I was confused by word "followed". Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"which made it impossible for him to work as an actor" & "removed permanently from the theatre" - I still don't understand the bit. To me "removed" means physically thrown out from the building. Why couldn't he just go to another company? I changed the wording to "black listed" but Google books search indicates he was still acting in 1735 & 1738. If it cannot be clarified, can I suggest removing?
He was not allowed on the premises. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed the confusing bit as another source simply says "fired" and there is indication he continued to act. Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed some spelling & simplified wording, please make sure I did not alter the meaning. Renata (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Flu epidemic supported by at least 2 sources: this & this. I think that leaves only the incomplete "29 September 1733" sentence. I trust that can be addressed in no time, so I am passing the nomination. Good work! Renata (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)