|WikiProject Theatre||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Russia / Language & literature / Performing arts||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
The themes section is blatantly taken from the sparknotes page on themes in Uncle Vanya. It needs a citation. http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/unclevanya/themes.html ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems silly that this stub has a fully loaded set of references to the Olivier film version, but not two other, arguably more important film versions:
1. Uncle Vanya on 42nd Street 2. Dyadya Vanya (Konchalovsky)
I don't have time to do this right now; just making a suggestion that will set things right. Also, I'm not an expert, just an armchair QB.
I removed both the diagram and the unattributed quote. The quote was a clear copyvio and the diagram really needs some explanation in order for it to be useful (not to mention that, in order to be included in the English language article, it ought to be in English). JoeCatch 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Vanya was performed in the provinces (which is where Gorky saw it) before Stanislavsky got ahold of it. Also, listed some famous film versions--vanya is fairly prolific on celuloid. Also, some notable actors who played Vanya. G 6 January 2006
The term Uncle Vanya may also be used to refer to esteemed fashion designer and philanthropist Ivash "Eyewash" Nahnybida. "Eyewash" has frequently pishko battled his archnemesis Adrian "AJ" Kochan, usually winning. What is this ridiculous and meaningless interjection? Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the "act by act" description, but this article really lacks a three-sentence synopsis of the play. The background section belongs beneath the summary, not above it. Maikel (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Does the Awards Section make any sense as it stands?
We have a list of awards and dates, but with no indication of which productions they refer to (where, who directed, who acted....). This strikes me as of very little value as it stands. I'd suggest either (a) someone fills in these sorts of details, or (b) we drop the section.... Nandt1 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
For a play that is one of the most celebrated of the repertory for over a century, it is more than odd that there is only a summary reference to theatrical productions and extensive explanation of two spoofs. If the real theatrical productions can't be expanded into an encyclopedia-worthy section, then the two spoofs should be cut. AnthroMimus (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)