Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:37, 16 January 2011 [1].

History of Sesame Street

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it deserves it, meaning that it's ready because it fits the criteria. I have worked really hard on this article; it is well-researched and has been vetted extensively by some great editors and copyeditors. I hope everyone who reviews it enjoys it, because it's about an interesting topic that taps into our collective consciousness, I think. Christine (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference comments from CrowzRSA

Consistency issues between the listing the year in short citations.
Ref 104: 2 p's needed.

CrowzRSA 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked really hard to get the references in this article consistent, so thanks for catching what I missed. I missed Ref 104 because it was hiding in a note. (Missing one ref out of almost 170 isn't bad, I must say.) Just to be certain, I went through the refs again and fixed a few more, so I think that the refs are now completely accurate and consistent. Christine (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose serious abuse of non-free content, too numerous to reasonably be expected to list Fasach Nua (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the discussion about this article's images as per Sandy's recommendation. Thank you for your continuing consideration of this article. Christine (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reviewers' and delegates' reference, the discussion hasn't actually been deleted; it's been moved to this FAC's talk page. Delegates should also be aware that Fasach Nua's oppose is still there, unstruck; Christine, I think you shouldn't remove an oppose like that, though I'm sure you had good intentions per Sandy's comments. I suggest you bring back some representative text (including the bolded oppose) and ping Fasach Nua to see if the oppose still stands. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike (yes, when moving commentary to talk, you should 1) first check with the opposer, and 2) leave the Oppose portion on the page :) And always leave a link to talk! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks as well. No, I didn't mean anything untoward in what I did. The oppose is back here, and I'll ping Fasach right away. Thanks for assuming good faith on my part, since that's what happened--as per Sandy's suggestion, I wanted to encourage more reviews, which wonder to behold, is exactly what happened! ;) And here's the talk link: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive1. Christine (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources comments

In several case you have used mdashes in page ranges, rather than ndashes. See 12, 46 and 104, and check for others

Fixed. Christine (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the formatting of the book references is untidy. For example, "Clash, Kevin and Gary Brozek & Louis Henry Mitchell (2006)". Mixing "and" and ampersand is ugly. Also, why should co-authors not have the standard surname-first format? Thus I would expect this to read: "Clash, Kevin; Brozek, Gary; Mitchell, Louis Henry (2006)" There are several other instances in the listing that require similar attention.

Fixed, fairly certain. Christine (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two footnotes require citations

Done. Christine (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read through about a third; thoughts so far:

Davis described it - first mention of Davis, we need context of who he is and why we care.

Got it, thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of Cooney's lack of experience in the field of education,[24] her study was well received - by whom?

The sources don't clarify by whom, so I deleted the phrase and moved the first part of the sentence up a paragraph. Christine (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear up use of Carnegie - sometimes it's "Carnegie Foundation", sometimes "Carnegie Institute", sometimes just "Carnegie". Are all these referring to the same thing?

The accurate title, is "Carnegie Corp. of NY", but the sources (Davis, Lesser) use the above titles interchangeably. I just changed all mentions to "Carnegie Corp." Christine (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references and guest appearances from celebrities would encourage parents and older siblings to watch together - is this being stated as fact? Or something they just felt was true (presumably there wasn't research on the topic)?

Nope, no research. I think it's safe to say that Cooney was the one who came up with the idea to use celebrities and since the paragraph talks about her initial proposal, I added, "Cooney believed that..." Christine (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who was primarily responsible for fundraising - does this mean she was the main person in charge of fundraising, or does this mean her main responsibility was fundraising (in which case I think it should be "responsible primarily")?

I use too many words in my writing. Since Morrisett was responsible for more than just fundraising, I cut out "primarily". Christine (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

procured additional grants totaling US$8 million from the United States federal government, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Ford Foundation - was the 8 million split roughly evenly between the three? If available, I'd personally prefer a breakdown of funding.

None of the major sources used in this article do that. I suppose we could find it in Sesame Workshop sources, but I was trying to avoid using primary sources. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. Christine (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connell took over animation and volume; and Gibbon served as the show's chief liaison between the production staff and the research team. - first mention of Connell and Gibbon so full names and possibly some context?

Got it, thanks. Christine (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They had worked on Captain Kangaroo...together - slightly unclear who "they" refers to.

"They" refers to Stone, Connell, and Gibbon; I clarified the sentence by replacing the list of names with the word. Christine (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a popular and highly-regarded daily children's show which aired on CBS) - I'd be tempted to put this information higher up, where Captain Kangaroo is first mentioned.

That doesn't feel like something I wrote, so I removed the phrase. Christine (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good and I'm finding it very interesting so far. Will have a look through more of it in the next few days. Trebor (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading a bit further:

but Stone understood that there were infinite ways - "infinite" seems a bit hyperbolic.

Looking at the sentence, I've realized that the sentence doesn't really fit, so I deleted it. Christine (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The researchers involved with the show found that preschoolers were more sophisticated television viewers than originally though - more sophisticated in what way?

To answer that question would require a significant expansion, which wouldn't really fit. I think it would much better fit in Sesame Street research, an article I created after working on this one. I think that the section here should remain, since it has a different focus (historical and developmental). So, like above, I cut it. Christine (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

almost immediate praise - odd phrase, what caused the delay?

Too many words again! I cut out "almost". Christine (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs 2 to 4 of "Premiere and first season (1969–1970)" could do with some rearranging of content. The fourth paragraph (which also uses odd phrase "almost immediately apparent") in particular seems a bit disconnected - the ideas aren't all linked by "effectiveness" as the first sentence suggests it will be (I hope I'm making sense).

You've made some good points. I did some restructuring and cutting. It was a bit of a mess stylistically, wasn't it? Christine (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor, thanks for the feedback and assistance. It's made the article that much better! Christine (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good. I will try to finish the article in the next few days. Trebor (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few more comments:

This would protect them from the financial pressures experienced by commercial networks, but later created problems in finding continued support - later in the '70s? This doesn't seem to be expanded on much

Actually, that decision has caused some challenges in funding all along, so I removed the word "later" and added "throughout the show's history" to the end of the sentence. Christine (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

team of researchers analyzed Sesame Street{{'}s content - brackets error; would correct it myself but was unsure if you were trying to do something special there.

Nope, just a silly error. Thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the increase of thirty-minute children's shows on cable had demonstrated that programs lasting ninety minutes or more could hold the attention of young children - non-sequitur? The rest of the paragraph confuses me a bit: were they wanting to appeal to the younger children? What does it mean by target age? The next sentence suggests younger viewers weren't able to hold attention for 90 minutes, because they lost it after 40-45. (Part of the confusion might be that the meaning of "young" and "younger" viewers isn't crystal clear.)

Sorry, I'm probably being dense, but I'm still confused by the sentence As a result, the target age for Sesame Street shifted downward. The sentence before is about viewers losing attention after 45 minutes, and I'm not sure how that logically means the target age should be reduced. Trebor (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're being dense, but I'm being unclear. I moved the phrase in question to the section below in its discussion of changing the entire show. I think that my other changes might answer your questions. Please let me know if I was successful. Christine (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks good now. Thanks, Trebor (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

younger toddlers - same problem as above, it's not clear exactly what this means.

I fixed the above two issues by rewording some things and removing others. I think it's clearer now. Christine (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished an initial run-through, but still need to check notes/references/etc. and then give it another read. Thanks for the quick responses. I really enjoyed the article, it's an interesting history. Trebor (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I agree, of course. I highly recommend Street Gang, but Michael Davis. Great book, and very well-written. Christine (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the lead:

I'm not in love with the first sentence although I'm struggling to think of a better way to phrase it. "With" seems like the wrong word, maybe "using" (although then I think the sentence structure would need altering). "Cultural references" doesn't seem to quite fit with the others on the list either. Maybe it's just me, though.

I kept "with", but I did alter the sentence of that sentence, to "Sesame Street, with its combination of Jim Henson's Muppets, animation, live shorts, humor, and celebrity appearances, premiered on public broadcasting television stations on November 10, 1969." Notice how I expanded the phrase "cultural references". I've realized that to SS nuts, it's a catch-phrase for the things that encourage "co-viewing", or encouraging older siblings and adults to watch. It means including humor and celebrities to do that, so I clarified. Christine (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street has undergone significant changes in its 40-year history. - could be cut?
The show's success continued into the 1980s - bit of a stubby sentence - it suggests the next sentence will be about success, but it's not. Maybe expand it a little?

I cut both, and then tightened up the paragraph a bit. Christine (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be me, but the lead doesn't seem quite as well-written as the rest of the article (although I always think they're the hardest bit to phrase properly). Other points from refs and notes:

Writing leads has always been one of my weakest areas in WP editing. I appreciate the assistance. Christine (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notes are inconsistent in their use of en dashes and em dashes for page ranges.
Notes and refs sometimes use "Davis" and sometimes "Davis, 2008".

Um, I just went through the notes and found no problems. I did find others, though, which I fixed. Christine (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and notes 64 and 143 use "Davis, 2008". All the others use "Davis". Trebor (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I realize that you've been talking about the "Footnotes" section. I've gone back and fixed them now. Christine (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 10: "social reasons" is a bit ambiguous in meaning. Typo in "he the split". Another possible dash error in the money range?

Does switching the word "social" for "humanitarian" make it more clear? Fixed grammar error—"I is a English writer"! I thought that the m-dash was correct in this case, but I changed it, anyway. Christine (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I reach a new low for nitpicking, the square brackets in ref 7 aren't quite right.

Fixed. Christine (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what current policy is on wikilinking the publishers etc. in the references is (e.g. Newsweek, New York Times, Current, How Stuff Works). I normally do it but I don't know if it's required, or even encouraged.

I'm a real proponent of decreasing over-wikilinking, so I don't do it, either. Christine (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from my minor quibbles, notes and refs look good (at least in terms of formatting). Trebor (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've corrected everything now. Christine (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good. I'll give the article one more run-through soon, to catch any other minor details, and then that should be it. I don't know enough to comment on the image issue properly, but it seems to me that the "elmo's world" and caricature images are more justified than the others (although I agree it's a shame that any of them have to go). Trebor (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Move to support. Well-written, well-sourced, and thorough. I believe it meets the criteria (disclaimers: I do not have access to most of the sources for accuracy or close paraphrasing; and I am assuming the image issue above can be resolved). Trebor (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 Dab- David Connell; 0 dead external links; 1 external redirect, which I've fixed. --Pres N 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAC instructions, and remove the templates hiding commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

Per WP:LEAD, I think the content of your second sentence should be in the first sentence: it's a preschool educational television program, and the first sentence should say that.
I changed an instance of "US$" to "$" before realizing that you had multiple instances of this; I think, per [WP:$]], that since this is almost entirely about a US topic there is no need for the "US".
The total initial funding is given in the lead as $8M, but the "Development" section makes it sound as though the $8M is in addition to the original $1M from the Carnegie Corporation. Could you clarify?
"several studies showed its educational impact": this is a bit vague. Would the sources support: "several studies showed that it was having a positive educational impact"?
"CTW turned to other sources, such as the magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign income": since we haven't mentioned the magazine division before, I think this needs to be "its magazine division".
In a short span at the start of the last paragraph of the lead, you have "challenges", "changes", "changes" and "change"; could one or two of these be rephrased?
You repeatedly use a standard format for quoting an expert: "As author David Borgenrich stated"; "As historian Robert Morrow stated"; "As researcher Gerald Lesser ... reported". I think these need to be varied a bit. In a couple of instances you are probably OK to just use the material and cite it, without naming the source; in other cases perhaps "According to historian Robert Morrow", or "Historian Robert Morrow has commented/described/etc." could work.
"As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, especially from poor and minority backgrounds": to my ear the final clause isn't very precisely attached to "children"; the reader quickly understands it but it's a little loosely phrased. How about something like: "As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, with a particular focus on grants to assist children from poor and minority backgrounds"?
"For this reason, the creators chose public television to broadcast the new show": I don't follow this; what is the reason given? That paragraph actually seems to be arguing that public television was an unlikely choice, unless I misunderstood something.
The "Beginnings" section covers a lot of ground, and I think it might be beneficial to pull out the first two paragraphs to an initial section above the "Beginnings" title -- you could title it "Background", or just leave it untitled. Also, paragraph 4, 5, 7 and 8 in that section are essentially about Cooney's report, but paragraph 6 is about the plan to do something as a consequence of the report. Wouldn't that material be better at the end of that section, or in the following section?

I've glanced through the rest of the article but will stop reading there for now. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog. More than two weeks, no consensus to promote-- please work on outstanding issues and bring it back in two weeks for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.