I suspect you're writing in American English, but I note that false titles (e.g., "actor" and "Scottish author", rather than "the actor" and "the Scottish author") are sometimes considered non-standard in British English.
Yes, I used American English since the play was written and first produced in the US. Since there's also a significant amount of material about the UK performances, I've added a template so the language choice is clear. FWIW, I don't mind whether the definite article is used in these cases or not.
Good catch. I had used it in the infobox but forgot to place it anywhere else.
The lead comes across as a little choppy, with lots of short sentences. I don't think that should hold up promotion at GAC, but I thought you may want to know.
Merged two sentences, so maybe that takes a little off the little.
"He had played dual roles previously" Details?
Added.
"making it the first American adaptation of Stevenson's story" Had there been non-American adaptations?
That depends on interpretation. There was an 1886 production in London called The Strange Case of a Hyde and Seekyll, which was a parody. Some sources treat it as an adaptation, while others classify parodies as distinct from adaptations.
"While Mansfield's company was touring, a competing production appeared in March 1888, when Daniel E. Bandmann staged his version of the story, also using the title Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, at Niblo's Garden.[17] Unfortunately for Bandmann, his opening night, March 12, coincided with the Great Blizzard of 1888; only five customers braved the weather to see his production.[18] One of the attendees was Sullivan, who was checking on the competition.[12] Bandmann's production also motivated a letter from Stevenson to the New York Sun, stating that only the Mansfield version was authorized and paying him royalties.[19]" Two comments. First, is it worth linking to an article on the other adaptation? Don't be scared of redlinks! Second, this paragraph's tone wavers close to the not-quite-NPOV line.
Redlinked. (If/when it gets created, then the current article will need to be moved for disambiguation.) Adjusted one sentence, hopefully backing away from POV line a bit.
"Mansfield's Jekyll and Hyde opened" Why not full name and italics?
No strong reason, just varying the wording. Changed.
"introducing productions of Lesbia and A Parisian Romance at the beginning of October." Worth links? Again, don't be scared of red if they're notable.
Links added.
"of the comedy Prince Karl." Again!
Link added.
"Mansfield's company last performed the play at the New Amsterdam Theatre in New York on March 21, 1907. Mansfield fell ill soon after and died on August 30, 1907.[37]" Has it ever been performed since by others? In particular, did Irving ever use his right to perform it? (I see now that this is discussed elsewhere- I'll leave the comment, though. As this article is about the play, I do wonder why talk of performances of the play is in the legacy section, rather than simply being a part of the play's history.)
See comments below about the performance history.
"His portrayal of Jekyll is not as neurotic as Stevenson's, but not as stereotypically good as some later versions." I think this could be unpacked a little; I think some readers will struggle to understand the claim.
Expanded.
"The play was closely associated with Mansfield's performance and was not regularly performed after his death." Who did perform it?
As far as I can tell, the play was never performed at all after Mansfield's death, but it's hard to source the absolute negative. The source cited for that sentence is from 1916, and plays can be revived at any time, especially ones in the public domain. I don't have a recent source that says it was never performed again, so I worded cautiously. If it's creating a confusing implication, we could look for a different wording.
Yes, understood. Perhaps we could simply be upfront about the limits of our sources; "It was reported in 1916 that the play had not been performed since Mansfield's death"; you could even add something like "and 21st century treatments of the play record no subsequent revival" or something like that, if you have some sources to cite which would mention that kind of thing. (I don't think that crosses the NOR line if used very judiciously, but you may disagree.) Josh Milburn (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Reworded, but only to the point of what's clearly sourced. Also moved to the History section per your comment above.
Some more sources in the film section wouldn't hurt. I also feel that links to those films more-or-less directly based on the play would be a good addition to the article's lead.
Expanded with more material and sources, and added the films to the lead. I also realized I had accidentally conflated the description of the 1912 film with a different film, so that's fixed now.
Not strictly necessary, but do you think you'd be able to write a stub about Sullivan? It seems bizarre to have such a strong article about the play but no article about the playwright.
I might, but recently I've been prioritizing improving some articles to GA over creating new articles.
Your edits seem fine. Responses added above for most points. Will circle back in a bit on a few that involve more effort. --RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) I believe all comments to date have been addressed. --RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sources and images all look very good; spotchecks reveal no issues, and a quick search is suggesting that there may be other sources, but I'm happy that the "broadness" criterion of WIAGA is comfortably met. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
