# Talk:Influence of Sesame Street

This review is transcluded from Talk:Influence of Sesame Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Philosopher (talk · contribs) 13:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I am reviewing Influence of Sesame Street, as of oldid 534223572.
The version that passed GAR is oldid 537904455.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Note: I'm putting it on hold, but am not sure that it was ready for a GA review.  The 3a and 3b issues are particularly troubling. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 
1a.

Remove the comma from "premiered in 1969, to" in the first sentence.
The second sentence of the lead needs a year.  The starting year is probably the one referred to, but reading leaves me somewhat unsure.
First two done.  Added the phrase "at the time of its premiere" to add the time reference.
Is it the 14th or 15th most popular show?  The lead and #Ratings don't agree.
15th, looked at the source to make sure.
The first sentences of the first and third paragraphs are essentially the same.  Since they're both in the same section (the lead), can one of them be rephrased?
Good point.  Changed the third paragraph to "Sesame Street has also been the subjects of many controversies throughout its long run on television."
The first sentence of #Ratings' second paragraph has two parentheticals.  Consider either splitting it as a run-on sentence or introducing the CTW earlier and removing the second parenthetical.
I introduced the CTW in the 1st paragraph as per your suggestion.
"Sesame Street's high ratings increased into its second season" Does "into" mean "as it went into/began" or "during"?  Replace with a word conveying the correct meaning.
Picked "during".
Why is "note 2" a note instead of a normal reference?
Because it refers to the studies conducted, which is outside the purview of this article.  I added the phrase "For a discussion of these studies" to clarify.
Strike "who" from the caption of the Kevin Clash/Elmo picture.
In #Critical reception, "He withdrew Head Start's funding of the show and became the first of CTW's original investors to do so." This is one action phrased as two.  Would "He withdrew Head Start's funding of the show, becoming the first of CTW's original investors to do so." work?
"many of their conflicts" - this sounds like the article's already talked about conflicts, but I'm not sure that it has.
Next few comments addressed.  Changed the above comment to "as one source for their conflicts..."
"one of which was single" --> "one of whom was single", please
"when Kofi Annan and Jerry Falwell praised the Workshop's efforts"  I assume their praise matters because one was the UN SecGen and the other was a prominent minister, but it should probably be spelled out in the article.
Why are the 118 Emmy Awards mentioned in the last sentence of the article instead of with the other awards in #Critical reception, paragraph 2?
Fixed next few.  Re: above question: Mostly because I thought that it made a stronger end.  Moved to paragraph you suggest. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
2.

This sentence from #Ratings should really have a cite immediately after it, given the presence of a parallel sentence in the lead and the significance of its claim.
Um, not sure what sentence you're talking about?
Darn, neither am I. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
If you have the Morrow book handy, could you check the "a quarter of all preschoolers watched it regularly, or 90% of households with preschoolers" claim?  I don't quite see how that math works out.
I'm not that good at math myself. ;) I checked Morrow and like he does, separated the two ideas.  I also replaced "preschoolers" with "children under the age of six".
Is Another source of friction between the CTW and feminists were the lack of female Muppets, for which they held Jim Henson responsible, as well as his organization of all-male puppeteers, who tended to create male characters. The demanding production schedule tended to attract only men, and Henson expressed his opinion that women were incapable of withstanding it cited?  An additional in-line citation or two would be appropriate here, especially following Henson's opinion.
I tend to avoid WP:OVERCITE, so every claim between ref51 and ref52 are from the same source (ref52, of course).  I don't think citing as you suggest is necessary.
"It marked the first time AIDS and the goal of confronting the disease's stigma was included in a preschool curriculum." needs an inline citation immediately after it, too, given the boldness of its claim.
Same situation as above, supported by ref55.
References - I don't have access to the print references or to the old Time article or the Mississippi NYT article to check them; checking the online ones only.

Refrence 14b has both a different viewership and a different year than the sentence it is supporting.
Wow, can't believe that was inaccurate for so long.  Great catch, that's why we have other editors review articles to correct this kind of thing.  I could blame it on some random vandal, but that probably wouldn't be accurate, either. ;)
Reference 47 is a dead link and not archived by the Wayback Machine.
The article is no longer on the web.  Removed it and replaced it with a better one, from the G is for Growing book.
The other online links are good.
Thanks, all the above is fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
3a.

A major focus on the U.S. makes sense.  But why is there so little mention of its influence abroad?
Because there hasn't been much written about the international influence of Sesame Street, at least not that's within the scope of this article.  There is discussion of the international co-productions, and the article about it is linked.  BTW, that article was created during the FAC of History of Sesame Street (an FA that's been TFA) on the request of a reviewer who had the same issue.  I'm very proud of the co-productions article; it's one of my favorites and I believe one of the best, comprehensive, and inclusive articles about The Show on WP.  Unfortunately, there hasn't been any studies done on the effect of the co-productions.
The article seems to talk mainly about Sesame Street pre-2002.  Even the newer sources are mainly used to describe older events/discussions/etc. Why?  The show was majorly changed in 2002 (see History of Sesame Street#2000s and 2010s and this reference), so it seems odd that the article speaks so little to the most recent decade of the show.
Yes, I know about that.  Again, there hasn't been much written and studied about the last 10 years and its effect and influence.  I state here [[1], in the 2nd failed FAC of Sesame Street research, that SW really should update the aforementioned G is for Growing book, at least for their 50 anniversary, or better yet, for their 45th in 2014. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
3b.

Much of #Effect section seems like it could also fit in #Critical reception.  What differentiates them?
I tried to separate the discussion into ratings, a discussion of its effect on American culture ("Effect", which includes a summary of Sesame_Street_research#Summative research), its awards and accolades, and a discussion about the criticism leveled against it.  I'm wondering if it would improve things if I separated "Critical reception" into two sections, or at least a subsection titled "Critics of Sesame Street".  What do you think?

4.

The word "speculated" and similar terms seem to show up a lot (that particular word appears 3 times).  Why should we care about speculation?
Done.
7b.

Is there a reason it doesn't have a lead image?  I notice that File:Sesame Street logo.svg is listed as a free image, so perhaps that one could be used.
I've tried placing the logo in other similar articles, but reviewers (especially at FAC) have rejected it.  My eventual intention is to bring this article to FAC, so I didn't bother.  Actually, this article image situation is better than most.  SW is very protective of their characters, so there aren't many appropriate free images for these articles.  It's a consistent issue and problem.  I have sent the SW a letter requesting that they release their images to WP--just last week, as a matter of fact.
Conclusion: A small-g "good" article overall, but it needs work before reaching large-g "Good" status.  Holding for improvement. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.  It's been very helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked the changes, but do still have a few thoughts:
Thanks for catching the "preschooler" and "children under the age of six" thing - that explains the math problem!
Regarding OVERCITE, even that essay says that its "cite at end of passage" only applies where there are no other mid-paragraph citations.  The places I noted currently look like they are unreferenced precisely because earlier statements have mid-paragraph citation and they don't.  I really think that this needs to be fixed.
I looked more closely as the policy in question.  According to WP:REFPUNC, "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies..."  I interpret that as meaning that refs should follow the statement before it.  If you use many refs in the same paragraph, and they support different statements, you should place the refs after the statements they support.  IOW, and in this instance, ref52 of the paragraph about women supports every statement made after ref51 and before the appearance of ref52.  Does that make sense?
I disagree, but suppose that those spots aren't vital to the GA. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding 3a, I suppose WP:RS means we are limited to what is published.  Which would make this good enough.
3b - I agree, splitting the section would probably help the balance of the article a lot - good idea!  Probably unnecessary for the GA review, though.
Sounds agreeable to me.  I don't have time right to work on this, so I'll take care of it later, since you're ok with the sections as if for GA, definitely before I submit it to FAC.  Although probably much before that. ;)
Everything else is looking good!  Placing the article on  hold again. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, Phil, for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
All looking good now!  (Lame pun intended) Congratulations on a new  good article! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Influence of Sesame Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021053117/http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060405165756jmnamdeirf0.4207117.html to http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060405165756jmnamdeirf0.4207117.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)