Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Sesame Street/archive2

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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 19 March 2011 [1].

History of Sesame Street[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has come a long way since its first nomination. Since then, it has received an extensive and thorough copyedit/review by User:Mike Christie. I believe that this article is much improved now, especially its prose, and fulfills the criteria even more now. Christine (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Coren's tool found no copyvio; Earwig's tool turned up a whole bunch of sites, but it appears all of them were created after this article, so I'll assume they're the copies. My spotchecks of available sources found no close paraphrasing
Why are the Cooney notes not listed as in Fisch & Truglio? What about Note 135 (Truglio, et al., p. 74)? Notes 153-4 (Fisch & Bernstein)?
The refs in this article are very complicated and have been such a pain! Thanks for the catches. Christine 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full bibliography for Hellman appears in both Notes and References
You're right! Fixed it. Christine (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In the late 1960s, 97% of all American households owned a television set" - source?
Dealt with by combining the sentence with the previous one. Christine (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use a consistent date format
Fixed.Christine (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""Mississippi Agencies Votes for a TV Ban on Sesame Street". New York Times. 1970-05-03." and "Fitzgerald, Judith (2009-03-01). "Count This: 40 Years of 'Sesame'". Philadelphia Inquirer." - page(s)?
Both articles are pay-walled, so the page numbers aren't available. Christine (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated
I think I caught the one time--NC in the Bibliography section, right? Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Format should be similar for complete bibliographic entries in Notes and References - check for consistency
Consistent. Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times or The New York Times?
"The"--fixed. Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"television critic Tim Goodman called "deconstructing"" - your source has Sherman saying they "deconstructed the show", but Goodman never says "deconstructing". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right--I changed the phrasing to better reflect the sources, thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --Pres N 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm very impressed with the work Christine has done since this was last at FAC; it's now a fine article. I haven't done a source or image review but did spotcheck a couple of the sources for close paraphrasing and found nothing to concern me. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ ~~reading through now. I'll jot queries below:~~ Really, only some minor style issues prose-wise, and no deal-breakers as such. I have seen this article develop over the past several months on and off. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Is it "the" CTW, or just CTW? Both are mentioned throughout the article.
Thanks, we had missed a few of those in a previous sweep. The only times that its' not "the CTW" is when it's in a quote or in a phrase like, "CTW founder Joan Ganz Cooney..."--I hope. ;) Christine (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the first two paragraphs of the development subsection, I replaced "they" and "their" with CTW and CTW's because I wasn't sure to whom those pronouns referred. If you meant something else, please change those.
That's fine. Christine (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide context for the $28,000 per episode figure? Was it a lot of money, a little, or about average?
I added the phrase "impressive" because that's what the source calls it. If that's not enough, I can add some context and/or explanation. Christine (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work. I'm always wary when folks throw in a money figure in a historical context without explanation, since the value of the dollar has changed so much over time, and I don't have a frame of reference to compare it. "Impressive" answers that question. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand upon the epilepsy complaint, as to who said it and when?
User:Mike Christie and I had some discussion over this. The source doesn't state where it got it from, and I've never been able to find additional sources that support it. Personally, I think that the reporter was reporting an urban myth as fact. Mike and I decided to keep it in until someone else challenged it, so since you have, I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't add all that much, anyway. Christine (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"summative evaluations" in the 1970s section is a bit jargony ... can you rephrase that?
Okay, sure. Replaced it with "studies." It probably better fits in Sesame Street research, anyway. Christine (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2000s section, you state "as of 2009" or something to that effect, when talking about the number of Emmy wins. Does this figure need to be updated?
I added the five they won in 2010 in a note because no sources state the new number. Christine (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article a quick copy edit, mostly removing unnecessary "that"s because not much else needed changing, but please look at my changes to see if there's anything you disagree with.
Thanks for the input. Tee hee, this is pretty funny--I have 5 FAs thus far; I was corrected in my very first one (The Wiggles) about using the world "that" too much. I guess that I like that word! ;) Christine (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These comments aside, this is a fantastically well-written and well-researched article that is extremely readable and a joy to learn about. Everyone involved should be congratulated for their work, and I strongly support its inclusion as a featured article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you're too kind. I didn't create this article, but I basically re-wrote it. It's been very fun and truly joyful learning about and becoming an expert on The Show. I was surprised at the sheer volumes that have been written about it, but the research has been great fun. I agree; the history is utterly fascinating. To that end, I highly recommend Michael Davis' excellent book, Street Gang (book), which was invaluable in expanding this article. It also got my kids an autographed picture of Kevin Clash and Elmo! Christine (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion! I'll be sure to request that from the library. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images, have the concerns raised in the earlier FAC been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sandy. Kinda-sorta. ;) What I mean is I sent an email to CTW requesting that they release some of their images to Wikimedia, but haven't received an answer yet. (I'm not holding my breath.) There were images that previous reviewers had problems with, and they've all been removed. I'm not aware of any issues with the images that are left. My personal opinion is that we're right on the edge of the images being acceptable, at least to me. I'd rather have no images than substandard ones. My idea to remove all images was never addressed, so I assume that the current images are all acceptable. If you or any other reviewer disagrees, I'm willing to do something about it, like go through with my "radical" idea that this article have no images (no one has told me if that's even acceptable for an FA) and decorate it with quoteboxes. I respect your experience, Sandy, so I'll follow whatever suggestions you have. Christine (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christine, if I remember right, I've had FACs approved without any images. I don't know if standards changed in the time I was gone, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can you give examples of image-less FAs? I think a solution is to keep only the FU images and remove the screenshots. Then I'll use quoteboxes to further "decorate" the article. What do folks think about that? Christine (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. 2000 Sugar Bowl and 2006 Gator Bowl lacked pictures when they went through the FAC process; they've since had a few added after the fact. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, thanks. Finally someone has answered my question! ;) This is what I did: I removed all the questionable images. (What does everyone think of the Gordon, Susan, and Oscar image? Should that go, too?) Then I added a few quoteboxes to liven it up a bit. I must say, I always learn something valuable from the FAC process, even if it can be a royal pain sometimes. This time, I learned how to deal with images more effectively. Thanks to all. Christine (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes to removing that image for the reasons below. Jappalang (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review ~~Fair use concern~~:
- ~~File:Sesame Street Hal Miller as Gordon with Susan and Oscar.jpg~~
  Purpose: "To show the characters Gordon Robinson and Susan Robinson, who can only be depicted in images from the show."
  
  Caption: "Hal Miller, who played Gordon from 1971–1973, and Loretta Long (Susan), with Oscar the Grouch (Carroll Spinney). The producers, early in Sesame Street's history, decided to eschew the advice of experts and allow Muppets and humans to interact."
  
  Text (closest match): "The producers reshot the Street segments; Henson and his coworkers created Muppets that could interact with the human actors, specifically Oscar the Grouch and Big Bird, who became two of the show's most enduring characters. These test episodes were directly responsible for what Gladwell called "the essence of Sesame Street—the artful blend of fluffy monsters and earnest adults"."
  
  Unfortunately, the current purpose is decoration; in an article about Gordan and Susan, the image might justify its use as the lead identification (and sole) image. In an article about the show that speaks little about their appearance (as illustrated in the photograph) or about the scene portrayed in the picture, it is illustrative. Interaction between the puppets—acting out as if natural or such—could deserve imagery, but this publicity photograph does not show it and very likely such scene is best shown with motion (and even then, technology has advanced to such a degree that one would easily see how they interact). This sole copyrighted image in the current article is the only outstanding image issue; all other images are appropriately licensed for free use. Jappalang (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok, I have removed the offending image. (Oscar would love hearing me describe it that way; he'd say, "No, leave it in! Leave it in!") ;) Christine (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Nah, that grouch would have cried "Give it to me... heh, heh, heh, ... now scram!!!" and slammed his can (at least that is how I remembered his character was like... wonder if they have changed him now to be more "correct" like they did to Cookie Monster's diet...). Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  You're probably right. And I can tell you that Oscar has not mellowed in Carroll Spinney's old age, and here's proof: [2] And let me put you straight: Cookie Monster's diet DID not change! They were just doing a unit on healthy eating, and used Cookie as an example of eating in moderation. He still eats cookies, so don't worry yourself over that! ;) Christine (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing anything, folks? Is there something else that needs to happen here? Christine (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the delegates, but three supports, while usually enough for promotion, is not overwhelming support, and I suspect that it was not promoted last pass so that there would be an opportunity for further reviewers to take a look at the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not sure about the bold, italicised, link to Sesame Street. As it's not a verbatim copy of the title, it would be just as well to leave it italicised and linked, but not in bold.
Ok. Christine (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could link "shorts" as that means a variety of things to different people.
Ok, linked it to Short film. Christine (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the lead make it clear that the program is still being made, broadcast, and re-broadcast?
It does now: changed the 1st sentence phrasing to "...has aired on public broadcasting television stations since its premiere on November 10, 1969." Christine (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing from the final sentence in the lead "in its 40-year history" that it isn't still current (otherwise it'd be 42 years, right?)
The annoying thing about changing it to "42-year" is that someone has to go in and change it each season. That's what I hate about listing the number of episodes, because to be accurate, someone has to do it each time a new episode airs. That just seems silly to me. I also thought about replacing it with "long", but that's a matter of perspective. So I went with being ambiguous and removed "40-year". Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that was that I picked up the fact it's been 42 years, not 40 years...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... great societal changes occurring in the United States during this era, the time was ripe for ..." perhaps this is directly cited, but it does have a feeling of sensationalism about it.
It is cited. In a previous version, it was a direct quote, with "As Morrow stated,..." I was told that I was quoting too much, and that I was attributing too much. Should we go back to the direct quote? Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless there's a consensus to do so. If there's no clear-cut way forward, just go with what you have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
techno-geek query... "-Michael..." (in the quote box), shouldn't that be a spaced en-dash?
Sure.
Same quote - "Street [3]" should be no space between the t and the ref.
Got it. Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you link Muppets (e.g. the Henson caption), it's probably best to use "The Muppets" as the whole link, since that's its proper name.
Actually, I don't think that's correct. I think that it's "the Muppets", and in those cases, you wouldn't put "the" in the link, right? Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose it depends on the context you're referring to them. All links I've found (including our own) have "The Muppets" but I suppose if you're just generally chatting around "this Muppet" and "that Muppet" then "the Muppets" would count equally accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to the famous "The Beatles" controversy in WP. I don't even think there's a standard within the Henson Company or the SW. One of my FAs, The Wiggles always refers to the guys with the "the" in front, because that's how they do it. Does it really matter in this situation? Personally, I don't think so. Christine (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After ref 62, you have a "Sesame Street" but not in italics. I take it that's deliberate?
Um, to be honest, I couldn't really tell ya. So I put it in italics anyway. Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His research was so crucial to Sesame Street that Gladwell asserted, "...without Ed Palmer, the show would have never lasted through the first season"."[75][note 12] - is there a spare quotation mark here?
Yikes, you're right--got it. Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second quote box is formatted slightly differently from the first one, I would urge internal consistency.
Quote boxes are now consistent, and prettier, too. Christine (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the New York Times" it's "The New York Times", officially that is.
Grr, thought we had caught it in previous run-throughs. Now fixed, I hope. Christine (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gladys the Cow redirects to a page, Forgetful Jones, the same page, but to a sub-section of it. Worth doing the same for the Cow.
To be honest, I'm not sure how that's done. It doesn't show up in the source. Christine (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" on the Top-40 charts" I think you'll need to be specific about which Top 40 charts you're referencing here.
Added "Billboard".
"plus a $6 million surplus" minor point for me, I'd prefer "plus a $6 million surplus"
Huh?
Carroll Spinney - our article has her first name as Caroll.
Silly typo. And Spinney is male; he says that it's like being "A boy Named Sue". ;) Christine (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In the mid '80s," I thought we usually were more highbrow, like "In the mid-1980s" or worst case "In the mid-80s".
Changed to "1980s".
"after 40–45 minutes" in prose, why not "after 40 to 45 minutes"?
Changed.
"when 5 million" -> "when five million"
Done.
Kofi Anan should be Kofi Annan.
Another silly typo. Christine (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the 2000s section to say if it's still a current program in 2011.
Ok, added a line about the Season 41 premiere.
Note 9 - $15 million–17 million perhaps "$15–$17 million perhaps"?
Done.
Ref 14 - The New York Times.
Caught it above.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, very picky, but much needed. Christine (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I thought picky was what FAC was all about! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 March 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.