Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have since asked Badlydrawnjeff for clarification on his earlier comments, in particular, citation.  --  Zanimum 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA discussion

message: 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 , cut this down to simply regular quotes "" - and maybe retain one usage of , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Re: picture for the article

message: 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)
thread_title: Failed GAC

message: 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)
thread_title: Confused about the planned airdate

message: I am quick failing the article per the Quick fail criteria, the article has too many  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)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Okay, there are now no  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)
thread_title: Notes for GA reviewers

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Article needs 

message: * "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)
replies: text: 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?  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)
thread_title:  Various notes