# Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

My main concern with this article continues to be the main concern I raised at the FAC - this doesn't read like an encyclopedia article.  It tells an interesting story about an encyclopedic topic, but too much of the article reads like a story, and that's problematic.
Besides that, a quick copyedit would be helpful and I'd do a little more citing, as a lot of people would consider this article undercited at the moment.  They're fixable issues, but they're still issues.
Good luck. --13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors)

I've failed this for GA, as there has been no response to the questions raised for over seven days.  Please feel free to resubmit the article for GA if/when the issues have been addressed.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have since asked Badlydrawnjeff for clarification on his earlier comments, in particular, citation.  --  Zanimum 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of November 6, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not at the present time.  Article is formatted almost exactly like Muppet Wikia, which reads more like a fan Website description with some sources, and not an encyclopedic article.  Way too much usage of {{cquote}}, cut this down to simply regular quotes "" - and maybe retain one usage of {{cquote}}, if you really feel you wish to highlight something.
2. Factually accurate?: Seems to be pretty good, but please go back and reformat the rest of the cites with WP:CIT.  It's not required, but since you already used it for some of them, just keep citing uniformity in the rest of the article.
3. Broad in coverage?: Test results moves right into "The final episode addressed the advisors' concerns via a conversation in which..." - but what about the main plot of the episode itself?  If this was not developed fully, please explain and source that in the article.
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written with a neutral point of view.
5. Article stability? Article appears to be stable, no edit wars in the edit history or incivility on the talk page.
6. Images?: Lacking images.  A previous reviewer also asked - but couldn't you use some screenshots?  If there are no relevant free-use screenshots of Snuffy or some other related image, try to make a detailed fair use rationale case for a fair use screenshot.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far.— Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please message my talk page after the above has been addressed, and I will reevaluate.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


### Re: picture for the article
Reply in progress:

6. I thought we were to avoid using fair use images at all costs, only if they were necessary to understand the concepts relayed in the article. It's not necessary to know what a Snuffleupagus looks like, to understand that they're getting divorced, is it? The only free images of Sesame Street that exist are of Bob McGrath, who indeed does comment in the article (that comment could have been from anyone so a picture would be decorative at most), of the Oscar the Grouch puppet at the Smithsonian (the character is mentioned as being star of the replacement episode, but again, an image would be mostly decorative), and of a new character, introduced season 36 (2006).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the particular reviewer of this article, but one (and only one) free use image of this article would be acceptable to use in the infobox. Preferably, it should be something that very clearly elucidates an important part of this episode (a screen shot of a crucial plot point for example). Cheers, CP 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that the episode never aired and has never been released, either in whole, as a leaked bootleg, in the Museum of Television and Radio or even as clips in one of the 5 or more documentaries on Sesame Street. It does not exist anywhere, except for the private collection of Sesame Workshop.  --  Zanimum (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


### Failed GAC
I'm sorry, but it has been well over seven days and my above points were not really addressed, and no one messaged my talk page.  Feel free to take my above suggestions into account, and continue to improve the state of this article.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

I'm confused by the assertion that this episode, originally slated to be #2895, was to air on April 10, 1992.  That doesn't seem to match with Sesame Street's old production and airing schedule.  I happen to have the episode that ended up being #2985 instead (the Oscar the Grouch story mentioned in the article).  Based on the airing schedule Sesame Street used to have, it would have aired no later than January 1992, but more likely late December 1991.
Seasons 1-29 had 130 hours each. (Except the second season, which for some reason had 145.)  Knowing that the premiere aired on Monday, November 10, 1969, and that every season lasted 26 weeks, was repeated once, then was replaced by another six-month season, it's easy to estimate within a fairly small margin of error when the airdate for any random show would have been (up until #3786, when the production and airing schedule was changed).
Therefore, I'm confused how #2895 could have originally been slated to air as late as April 1992, since by the beginning of that month, the numbers would have been in the 2970's.

I've just talked to a writer on Muppet Wiki, and he's provided me with the references for both the airdate and episode number. The number is in an educational study by a current Sesame Workshop exec, and the airdate is in both U.S. News & World Report and the Herald Sun.  --  Zanimum (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Newbie27 is adding this link as a source that this episode aired on KQED. I'm not seeing anything that supports this claim on that site. Her/His note says to see the April 1992 listing, but that archive only goes back to Jan 31, 2000. Am I missing something? —scarecroe (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, as far as I can tell. Seeing that this isn't their only series of disruptive edits, I've warned this user on their talk page that they may be banned for two weeks if they continue.  --  Zanimum (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See [1] for information. Newbie27 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Some random fan having a memory about what s/he may or may not have dreamed/seen on TV does not constitute as a verifiable source. —scarecroe (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See also the KQED San Francisco website's episode archives for more information. Newbie27 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to. Can you provide a link please? —scarecroe (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[2]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So, back to my original point, that link has nothing to do with proving that this episode aired. —scarecroe (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Look in broadcast archives for April 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 March 2008
Please read the first post in this thread. —scarecroe (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
KQED Public Television keeps an archives of all their programs, going all the way back to the station debut in 1954. An online version of the station's extensive program schedules is accessible through the KQED website. View the April 10, 1992 station listing for more information on this episode. If you are having problems locating or accessing information within the archives, you may consult the station's viewer services at (415) 553-2135 for live assistance available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm or via email at tv@kqed.org. The station can provide you with any information of their past programs, children's programming efforts and broadcast history upon request.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the Sesame Street database on this site started on Mon, Jan 3, 2000 -- 8:30 AM. http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=6510&date=20000101
The first date on the site in terms of a whole day's schedule, appears to be even more recent, August 1, 2003. http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/index.jsp?Month=8&Date=1&Year=2003&Format=long  --  Zanimum (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am quick failing the article per the Quick fail criteria, the article has too many {{fact}} tags which means there's too much original research. I also see some style problems, like years and common words (death, birth) wikilinked, so I think it's better if you take a closer look to What is a Good Article? before renominating. When it comes to the picture problem, why not just add some random sesame street pictures with a fair use rationale? Happy editing! --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there are now no {{fact}} tags. Years have been unlinked, except for the main two years, which both link to the Years in television series of articles. May I note that links to common words like death are because the concepts were discussed on the series. Yes, people know what the terms are, but the MOS rule against linking to the article is because they don't want this sort of link "(d. 1962)". Anyway, hope these notes are a good note for another reviewer to give it a go.  --  Zanimum (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Also note:

there are no screen shots of this episode, as it has never been released, or even previewed in news footage,
there are no free license images relevant to this article, the only
Thanks!  --  Zanimum (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the lead, "As a result, producers filmed an episode "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce"[2]", the comma should come before the source.
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, it would be best if "Sesame Street" was linked once, per here. In the Test results section, "Staff writer Norman Stiles was assigned to the script, which the Children's Television Workshop scheduled to air 10 April 1992", since the article is not international, you might want to fix the date setting, per here. Same section, link "Big Bird" once. Same section, italicize "Sesame Street News Flash", per here.
Half-check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
References 8, 11, 12, and 14 are dead links. In the Test results section, "The final episode addressed the advisors' concerns via a conversation in which Gordon reassures Elmo, Big Bird, and Telly that "Just because parents have an argument, or get upset with each other, doesn't mean they're getting a divorce... Or that they don't love each other anymore." He also reassured Snuffy and his sister Alice that it's not their fault, "No, not even if you spill something", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here and here. The link titles in References 8, 11, 12, and 14 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here. Also, Reference 23 needs Publisher info., accessdate, etc.
Half-check.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Does Reference 16 cover all this ---> "Not everyone in the production shared Stone's interest. Executive producer Dulcy Singer vetoed the idea in 1990, before it reached development. While she felt complex social matters should be discussed on the series, she felt the issue was irrelevant to lower socio-economic groups; the initial target audience of Sesame Street was inner city and financially disadvantaged families"? If so, it might be best to add the source next to the statement.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a second opinion. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


### Second opinion
Overall, the article looks good. It's nicely sourced and written. However, I have some concerns.
- Is the lead supposed to have that many citations in it? I guess considering the subject matter, and the way it's presented, this could be an exception.
- Some paragraphs have only one sentence. Are you unable to combine them into other paragraphs?
Those are my concerns with the article. Otherwise, it looks great! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


### Per the discussion between ThinkBlue and I
We will put this article on hold for seven days. After my concerns are addressed, we ask that you send us a message on our talkpages. Then we will most surely pass this article. Thanks, good work and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have one concern. Reference 23 is missing Publisher info., an accessdate, date, etc. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The seven days have been up, and with consultation with CarpetCrawler, I've decided to fail the article. If the one comment above can be addressed, then the article may be renominated for GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 16:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll give reviewing this a shot, different enough from my usual reviewing that it should be interesting. Wizardman 16:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:

The last reference doesn't seem reliable since it's just to Wikia; find a different one and make sure the data is all there.
Is there a way to tweak the lead? There are far too many references in it. I know some are unavoidable, but you should have zero difficulty cutting them in half here.
For that matter, the second para in the lead isn't part of the body text at all, so there is a summary style issue here.
The body of the article is fine, if slightly quote-heavy. Just retool the needed part and I'll pass it. Wizardman 04:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a week and there's been no acknowledgement of anything, so I'm failing this. If this is addressed let me know and I can pass it next time. Wizardman 23:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think that this article needs to be completely re-vamped.  Since 2007, it's been through one FAC and 5 GACs, the most recent one in January of this year, and all have failed, for good reasons.  The last GAC failed because the nominator failed to follow through, which I think is fortunate because the reviewer seemed ready to pass the article.  If it was passed at that time, I would've gone on the record opposing, even though I've written most of the Sesame Street articles on WP and I have a vested interest in these articles getting through reviews.  The biggest problem with this article isn't the prose or the structure, it's the fact that it's pretty much parallels Muppet Wiki, almost to the point that it plagiarizes it.  
Don't get me wrong; I love Muppet Wiki, and use it all the time.  It's a wonderful resource, but one of my personal goals for articles about Sesame Street on WP is that they become more academic, and that's not the purpose of Muppet Wiki.  I think that it's a good starting point, but this article here needs to be better sourced and better written.  That certainly isn't true about the current version, and I'd like to change that.  There has been a lot written about this episode in the literature, especially since the SW made the resource kit about divorce in 2012. [3] It's also important enough for it to have a high-quality article.  (On a side note, I'd like to create an article about Mr. Hooper's death, but I'm not sure that there's enough information to warrant it.)  
For those reasons, I believe that we should completely re-vamp this article, meaning that it needs a complete overhaul and re-write.  Much of the current content should be used, but we should use different sources.  I'd like to take it on, but because I'm somewhat certain that this article has many watchers, I wanted to see what the consensus was before I started.  Please discuss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Muppet News Flash: As per the above, I've spent some time working on improving this article.  See this sandbox: [4].  Of course, I need to do some formatting and work on the references.  All concerned parties, please go to the sandbox and tell me what you think.  I wanted to get input before I put what I've done in userspace.
In other news, I think that the Hooper episode has potential to become its own article.  There's a lot more information about it than this one, so I've put it on my list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Now finished and will submit for both DYK and GA.  I think that this article is much improved.  Sad subject, but interesting and I must admit, fun to work on. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"Different trees": Thanks for working on this article. That said, it's inaccurate to suggest that the Little Children, Big Challenges: Divorce DVD was the first segment. The "different trees" segment was the first, back in the 1980s. http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bird_Family
The first references I've been able to find are these:
http://www.mypadivorcelawyer.com/Divorce-Law-Blog/2013/February/Sesame-Street-Helps-With-Uncontested-Divorce.aspx
http://www.womansday.com/sex-relationships/divorce-diaries/the-sesame-street-episode-your-kids-will-never-see-15220
... but the fact that the DVD reused "The Bird Family" song in the special is also relevant.  --  Zanimum (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this info, Zan.  I don't think I should use the webpages, since they say the same thing that other, more reliable sources already state.  Question: What page from the Gikow book is this from? [5] I wasn't able to find it in my copy.  Once I have the page number, I can add some of the info from it here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Image choice Why did you choose a generic fair use publicity shot of Snuffy? Given that any illustration for this article would be fair use, why not the screen shot from the episode, published in 40 Years?
Episode number It probably should be noted that #2895 was used for another episode altogether.  --  Zanimum (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I was waiting for answers for this, and then was reminded about these questions during the GA review below.  The image is chosen because although the one here is a screenshot, I don't think that using another screenshot from the episode would pass.  I suspect that if this article were submitted to FAC (which I wouldn't, since I think it's too short), it wouldn't pass.  In the most recent GAC, the reviewer mentioned it but didn't direct me to remove it, so I don't want to push my luck.  Re: the episode number, I added the word "intended" in parenthesis.
I don't feel right about including the Bird Family info to this article until I get reliable sources to back it up.  I don't think that the Woman's Day source is satisfactory, especially with its tone and the fact that you can tell they got their information from Muppet Wiki.  I've figured out that the screenshot from Muppet Wiki was taken from the 40 Years DVD, but I still need the page number and the accurate sourcing before I can add it here, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent Thorough check using Google.

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done (NFC with valid FUR) 

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

The major point Legacy in the lead is not a concise summary of the Legacy section in the body.
The lead does not give relative emphasis to the major point Legacy as is given in the body.
Can you please check once more that the inline citations are correctly placed against the content they cite, because the sources are inaccessible to me?
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All the concerns above have been addressed, including checking that all the sources are accurate.  Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The redirect Episode 2895 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Episode 2895 until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)