Talk:Sesame Street research/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Korruski^Talk 09:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a tough one to review, and probably a bad choice for my first ever review! It's text-heavy and quite technical in places, and it's hard to check the references as almost all of them are offline, so I have had to assume good faith with most of those.

Still, it's a great article. Really interesting niche subject, well-researched and laid out, nicely written for the most part, and seems more than comprehensive. Most of my concerns are minor, or revolve around ways that it could be made clearer and easier to read, as currently it is a rather intimidating wall of text!

As I say, it's my first ever review. I really hope these comments are useful, and I would be happy to discuss any of them with you either here or on my talk page.

Best wishes.--Korruski^Talk 14:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Korruski. I appreciate the review and the assistance in the improvement of yet another Sesame Street article. I hope you have fun learning about it. It's good to challenge yourself! I can assure you that the sources check out; they've been used in many other SS articles. The subject requires off-line sources in order for it be comprehensive. Christine (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

It immediately strikes me that the first sentence doesn't explain what the subject of the article actually is, per WP:BEGINNING. This especially important as the name of the article is vague (is it research into the characters on Sesame street? No, of course not, but it should be clear from the first line what it is about)
Good point. I thought that the first line was a good punch. It's such a great line, though, so I moved it to the beginning of the second paragraph and as a result, had to change some of the wording in the first paragraph. Please tell me what you think of my solution. Christine (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Beginning says that 'if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence'. Personally, I would expect to see something like: "Sesame Street Research is the extensive research that producers and experts carried out when scripting the popular children's television program, in order to improve its educational qualities". Just helps to make it really clear what we are talking about, and almost all other articles use this format, so I am unsure about departing from it without a very good reason. True, some of the article also covers later research into the shows effectiveness, but that is more or less secondary, so doesn't necessarily need to be covered in the first sentence. What do you think?--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Remember, though, that the MOS is a guideline, but it's sensible advice, so I have no problems with following it. Christine (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, done.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formative and summative research: per WP:LEAD technical language should be avoided in the lead. Perhaps the terms could be replaced with laypersons explanations, or used and then summarised? If neither of these are possible, they should perhaps be bluelinks.
Wasn't aware of the articles that exist on those things, so I wikilinked. I have a tendency towards under-linking, so thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I am first writing a lot of prose, I never think to stop and wikilink! Just have to force yourself to go back and look at it with the eye of an anal GA reviewer... :D Anyway, done.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm Gladwell quote: Was Gladwell referring to Sesame Street, or were CTW actually inspired by this quote? If so, it should be made clear. If not, it's not really needed, and would be better just summed up with ordinary text and a citation to show that they were indeed working on this assumption.
But I love that quote! ;) You're right, though: the CTW came first. To make it easy on myself, I cut it, since it doesn't appear again in the article anyway. Christine (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does seem to adequately summarise the content of the article, so that is good.

Overview:

It perhaps takes too long to refer back to the subject of the article. I know you are setting the scene, but this is basically the first paragraph of main article content and you don't mention Sesame Street Research until the third sentence.
But it does: the last two sentences of the first paragraph: As author Louise A. Gikow stated, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research. Cooney called the idea of combining research with television production "positively heretical", because it had never been done before. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third sentence, I said. I just think you set up the first paragraph in a slightly roundabout way that would be perfect for a journalistic article, but is less suited to an encyclopedia. As with the lead, I think the subject of the article needs to appear in the first sentence of the main body of the article. Let me know if you particularly disagree with that, though.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the easy way to fix that is to do some restructuring. Of course, when you do that, you have to tweak the rest of the paragraph. Christine (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, happy now :)--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Cooney was not alone in her criticism, it would be better to mention here who else supported her, rather than in a footnote, otherwise, it is verging on a bit weasely.
I cut that phrase, but kept the footnote because Cooney was making an inside joke of sorts, and I wanted to explain it without spoiling it since people in television would get the reference immediately. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Cartoons' could be wikilinked?
Okay. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source to suggest that Cooney's study was 'well received'? Although much of the rest of the sentence is cited, this claim seems not to be.
I personally think that WP over-cites, but to follow policy, I moved the sources to the end of the sentence. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm going to have to trust that the sources actually include the fact that the study was well-received, as just moving them to the end of the sentence doesn't necessarily mean they are an adequate source!--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boston and New York could be wikilinked?
Okay, here's my opinion about this. There's underlinking, and there's over-linking. It's no longer necessary to link the names of cities and countries. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on closer examination, your stance is in accordance with WP:OVERLINK. My bad!--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'There was some concern' is weasel words
Not only is is weasely, it's passive voice! Another issue I have in my writing. ;) Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's perfect! :)--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTW Model

Paragraph 2 (and again in para 3, and several other places) I personally don't like the format 'as xyz stated, "abc def"'. If the quote is itself important, then just say 'xyz stated "abc def"'. If it's not, then just summarise 'abc def' in the normal text of the article and cite it with reference to the quote. Perhaps this is personal preference, though.
This reflects change in the WP practice of having to attribute every quote. I wrote this article before I knew about the change. Not that I'm blaming anyone, though. ;) I went through the entire article and improved the prose in this area. I think it's much better now. Christine (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, much better, thanks.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no non-free media use rational for this article for TakalaniSesame-set.jpg‎.
Got it, thanks.
Yup, all good now.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formative research

How does this tie in to the CTW model? Might it be better as a sub-heading to it? Otherwise, it's not clear what the relationship between the two is.
Please forgive my denseness, but I'm not sure what you mean. I state above that formative research, along with summative research, make up the model for the purpose of informing production. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't clear here. But you get it in your comment below and, based on that, I'm happy with the current structure.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could add sub-headings of 'methods' and 'conclusions' to break this up a bit? It seems to roughly fall into that pattern anyway.
That's an excellent idea. It better follows the structure of a formal research study. To take it even further, I named the second sub-heading "Results" instead. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great!--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence doesn't quite make sense to me. Do you mean '...used concepts from the field...'?
From is better. Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way were pre-schoolers more sophisticated television viewers? This seems important information. (Para 1)
I removed the sentence because it's kind of a throw-away. If I were to explain it, it would complicate things. I don't think that discussion belongs in the article, anymore. Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess it's not crucial, and there's no point adding extra information for the sake of it. Just seemed like the sort of claim that should have some explanation. But if you can remove it without damaging the article, so much the better.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be tempted to remove some or all of the information in about Palmer and his background as it lengthens an already quite wordy section with information that, while interesting, is not central to the main thrust of the article. (Para 1)
I think I disagree. I think it's important that we establish his credentials and introduce who he was. Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a big deal. It felt to me as if it delays the main drive of that section of the article, which is about the research. I wonder if the Palmer info could go in a seperate section or even some kind of infobox. Not sure if that's standard for WP though. Anyway, definitely not a deal-breaker as far as GA goes.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does "go back to the drawing board" need to be a quote? If so, who said it? Personally, I would be a bit clearer on what they would do. Would they make specific changes based on the information received, or would they literally script a new show? The latter seems unlikely! (Para 2)
Actually, they did both! Note 5 cites a specific example (the Snuffy's parents get a divorce storyline) when they scrapped entire episodes. It really demonstrates the importance of research. At any rate, I paraphrased the line to read, "...they would change or remove content." Better? Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks!--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summative research

Again, how does this tie in to 'The CTW model' section? Should it be a subsection?
I've thought about this question, and I wonder if what you mean is, "Why is "The CTW model" its own section?" The model, as a concept, really should be separate from a discussion about the research conducted on The Show. Christine (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's basically what I was asking! I took the formative and summative research to be part of the CTW model, but if you think it makes more sense to be seperate, you're the expert.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the CTW and ETS have a potentially adversarial nature? This is interesting, it would be good to know more.
The original sources doesn't explain it, either, so I removed it and then restructured the other part of that phrase, about the ETS lending credibility to the CTW. Christine (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Longitudional study should probably be replaced, explained or at least bluelinked
Linked. Christine (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

Is there an image that could be used at the top of the article? A logo or something?
I went ahead and added the SS logo, but I suspect that it wouldn't last if I brought this to FAC. Christine (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Logos seem to get away with being used under fair-use quite widely. Check out Microsoft for example. Anyway, I'm happy with this.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are any pictures of Palmer available? It would be a great addition if so.
Actually, no. At one point I had images of Cooney and Lesser, but they were removed for copyvio reasons. As I've stated, images are an issue with SS articles. I emailed the SW in Feb. and requested that they release some of Wikimedia, but haven't heard anything back yet. The SW is very protective of their images, so I'm not holding my breath. Images could very well be the reason SS articles don't get a high rating. I'm comfortalb e with the state of the images here, for now. Christine (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, but never mind. I think more would be better, but if you're using as much as is available, then that's fine.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are any graphs or data results available? It would help to break up what ends up being quite a bit of text.
Nothing that wouldn't violate copyrights. Note 3 refers to a graph of the CTW model. Christine (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. Fine, as above.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
nicely written. Layout improved per comments above.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I can't personally verify most of these, so am assuming good faith to a certain extent.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad and comprehensive, focus improved.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images now have FURs.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Pass. Now to figure out how to make it a GA...

--Korruski^Talk 14:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.