Wolfe in the Wings

Wolfe in the Wings exists to celebrate and recommend work across theatre, comedy, cabaret, film and television while providing honest, informed criticism from a working performer’s perspective.

Publication policy

Published reviews receive a rating of three, four or five stars.

A performance that does not reach the three-star threshold will not receive a public review or rating. Where appropriate, the company may be offered private, constructive feedback, but only if they wish to receive it.

Ratings

Three stars: Recommended. A worthwhile production with clear strengths, although there may be areas that could be developed.

Four stars: Strongly recommended. A highly accomplished and engaging production.

Five stars: Exceptional. An outstanding production demonstrating excellence within its intended genre, style and circumstances.

A star rating summarises the accompanying review; it does not replace the reasoning and examples contained within it.

Editorial approach

Reviews consider the production that was actually presented, its apparent intentions and how successfully those intentions were realised. Work will be considered within its genre, venue, budget and performance context rather than being criticised for not becoming a fundamentally different show.

Facts and opinions will be clearly distinguished. Names, credits, characters and production details will be checked wherever reasonably possible.

Criticism will address the work and its execution, not a performer’s body, identity or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

Independence and disclosure

I will not review work involving close friends, current collaborators or anyone with whom I have a personal, financial or professional conflict that could reasonably call my independence into question.

Reviews will not be submitted to performers, producers or publicists for approval before publication.

Corrections

Requests to correct factual errors are welcome and will be considered promptly. Corrections will be acknowledged where appropriate.

A disagreement with the reviewer’s critical judgment is not, by itself, a factual error and will not normally result in a review or rating being changed.

Editorial tools

Every review is based on my own attendance, observations and critical judgment. Digital tools may assist with transcription, spelling or editing, but they will not replace seeing the work or forming an independent opinion.