NYGASP certainly got a lot of reviews, mostly for RUDDIGORE, and mostly by online critics, which unfortunately makes them low in credibility.
The New York Times liked it, and it's short and positive, so you may as well read it.
London's Financial Times gave a lively, positive review, but disparaged excessive mugging and amateurish decor.
Variety enjoyed it but also mocked the hyped Edward Gorey-inspired sets and the "distractingly awkward dancing of the male chorus," who did have a pretty busy time of it.
The Backstage review is, again, positive - there is an encouraging adjective for each of the principals - but this guy just doesn't like RUDDIGORE very much.
The rest of these are all online writers, and I suppose it is my duty to look at each one and recommend it or not.
Gay Socialites.com. Brief, positive-ish, and a waste of time, depending how much you value 20 seconds of your life. "Forbes on Film and Footlights" is pretty good, readable, expected online lack of depth but a nice mention of nearly every principal. Qonstage is positive and kind of fun. Gay Socialites also reviewed "Mikado," which you can feel free to skip, included here for reasons of completeness. Here is a "Pirates" review from Theater Scene.net which labels me "impressive," though not definitive. Is the world a worse place for not having a definitive Major-General in it? Who cares? Who's the definitive Hamlet, or Sherlock Holmes? It's a not-unentertaining review nonetheless. I guess a review should contain something a little baffling.
The other reviews I am aware of are in the posting below this.
Want a break from RUDDIGORE reviews? Something with a modicum of wit, perhaps? Why not try this review I wrote of my brother's bassoon recital, written in showoff small-city newspaper style?