What I'm really interested in is how you would approach the review. What kind of context would you put the show in? There are so many adaptations of Sherlock Holmes--and this is but one of them. Can or should you compare them?
What expectations did you have of the show and why? Did the show meet, exceed, or fall short of them? How?
What about the various elements of the show: the script, the acting, the blocking (the positions and large movements of the actors, generally set by the director), the sets, the lighting, the sound, the costumes, the directing? Can you separate them from each other as they show up on stage?
Would reviewing theatre be more challenging for you than reviewing film? Why or why not? Would you feel a different responsibility with the power you might have? And what kind of standards would you hold the shows to? Given, for example, that the Civic is a community theatre staffed largely by volunteers, would you review their work differently than, say, Broadway touring company shows put on at Miller Auditorium? Why or why not? Does the role of the critic change given a different medium/art form? Feel free to reference the chapter in McLeese as you see fit.