Talk:Old Friends ... New Friends

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Figureskatingfan's review of draft[edit]

User:FunnyMath, I'm reviewing your draft as per your request. I'm treating this as if I'm over at one of WP's many apparatuses for reviewing articles and providing feedback (Guild of Copyeditors, Peer Review, GAN, FAC). I apologize beforehand if it's overly picky, but I'm afraid I can't help myself. ;) Please take everything with a grain of salt and in the spirit in which it's intended, a desire to help and create the best possible article.

Thank you so much for the feedback. I will try addressing some of the feedback today, but I'll definitely do more tomorrow. I'm fine with this format. It makes it easy for me to address each feedback. FunnyMath (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

  • I made a couple of copyedits the first time I went through the article. Many of the overarching issues with this article require more than than that, however, so before going through the sections, I'll include them here.
  • You seem to have the opposite issue as many editors, including myself: you tend to underlink, as opposed to overlinking; see MOS:LINK. Perhaps you're waiting to publish it in article space, though; if so, please disregard this feedback.
I agree that there's not enough links. I was planning on perfecting the article and then adding links at the last step. I'll keep that in mind. FunnyMath (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could be tightened up a bit. I could help with that after you deal with other issues; I also suggest that you get more eyes through the Guild of Copyeditors and/or Peer Review.
I'm more than glad that you are willing to help with the prose. Feel free to tighten it up. I'll also consider the Guild and the Peer Review after I edit some more. FunnyMath (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenses. We use the historical present tense when talking about works of fiction (see MOS:WAF). Be careful, though, it's really easy to mix your tenses. When summarizing the content of an episode, use historical present tense, but when you talk about the series, use past tense. I think Fred Rogers#Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is a good model.
On a quick reread of the draft, I noticed that I did mix up the tenses. I will use historical present tense when describing episode contents. I'm being nitpicky, but I wouldn't call Old Friends a fictional work. I believe that the interviews and Rogers' monologues are very much real. :P I definitely agree that the childhood reenactment scene in the "Memories" episode can be considered a work of fiction however. FunnyMath (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes: You're a bit heavy-handed with the quotes. I suggest going through and paraphrasing them. (Interestingly enough, that's a piece of feedback I've received from many a reviewer myself.) Here's an example, the first paragraph of the "Purpose" section: Rogers said that Old Friends ... New Friends was created to address the increasing isolation and division between younger and older generations, from his belief that the generations "have much to give each other",[1] and that differences in age should not separate people. Clark Santee, who worked for Family Communications, Inc. during production of Old Friends ... New Friends agreed, stating that the young and elderly often face similar problems, including needing "reassurance that they have purpose".[2] I cut the last part of the last quote because it doesn't seem to fit with what Santee was trying to say about the connection between the young and the elderly. That's an editorial choice; you can include it if you like.
You're right that there's too many quotes. I will definitely reword the draft to minimize the number of quotes. That example sounds much better and I added it in. FunnyMath (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I chose not to focus on the lead, since I suspect that much of it will change as we go along. At first glance, though, I think you include too much information. Remember that the lead is supposed to summarize the article; see MOS:LEAD.

I was trying to copy the structure of the Sesame Street article, which is a featured article, by having four paragraphs in the lead. Are you saying we should reduce the number of paragraphs? I'm fine with that if that's what you want. FunnyMath (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead for the current version should be two or three paragraphs, since it's now at about 16,500 characters (without the content in the chart). If it gets longer, we can add more content to the lead. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about MOS:LEADLENGTH. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll edit the lead after I edit the body and see what the final character count is. FunnyMath (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • As per WP:PARAGRAPH, you should combine the first two sentences, and perhaps add more content. How about this, which also flows better: In 1969, television producer Fred Rogers created and hosted a half-hour educational children's television series called Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, which used the concepts of early child development and emphasized young children's social and emotional needs.[3] In 1975, after 455 episodes, Rogers stopped producing new episodes of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.[4] Basil Cox, then manager of Family Communications, Inc., the company that produced the program, said the choice was made completely by Rogers and surprised his colleagues.[5]
That paragraph reads much better. I was planning on summarizing what Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is about in the first paragraph, but I think the way you did it is perfect. I'll add it in. But shouldn't the year be 1968 and not 1969? I'm guessing you're referring to when the show started airing color episodes. I tweaked the year and mentioned that the 455 episodes were in color and that earlier episodes were black and white. Let me know if that's still a problem. FunnyMath (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right about the year, my bad. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next three paragraphs: I think that this content is about the Neighborhood, not about Old Friends...New Friends. I suggest that you summarize and cut it, perhaps like this: Rogers chose to allow the Neighborhood to air as reruns rather than producing new episodes, stating that he felt that he had covered the salient points in child development and that the program's regularly changing audience made further production unnecessary and a waste of funding.[4] I understand that I've cut out a lot, but I think you'd get similar feedback from other editors. That happens a lot in writing, you know; we end up writing content that gets thrown on the editing room floor, to use a metaphor from filmmaking. I also think that you could add these sentences to the first paragraph above.
Done. I agree that there's too much focus on the Neighborhood. I was thinking about adding it to the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood or even the Fred Rogers article and then cutting some of the paragraph out in the draft. When I research on Newspapers.com, I tend to find information that I thought would be interesting for other articles and not necessarily for Old Friends. But you are absolutely right that I should focus on Old Friends and not Rogers' other works. FunnyMath (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two of my long-term WP goals is to bring Fred Rogers to FA, and then to improve the Neighborhood article. My focus is on other things right now in WP-land, and I'm becoming more busy IRL, so it may be a few years. Lots of research needs to be done, and I'm not motivated to do it right now. But if you want to tackle the Neighborhood, I will help. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to hear that you're going to make Fred Rogers an FA. I'll leave that article to you then. Thank you for offering to help with the Neighborhood article. I might get around to editing it, but I got other ideas I want to focus on as well. I'm thinking of starting an article for The Children's Corner after Old Friends is done. FunnyMath (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next paragraph: Tweaking a bit: During his hiatus from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Rogers continued to work on other television programs, including Old Friends ... New Friends, a series aimed at the elderly, I Am, I Can, I Will, a program for children with disabilities, and Let's Talk About ..., a series that covers stressful moments in family life, such as reassuring children going into the hospital. Rogers said they all centered around his primary concern for the family: "There are so many forces in society that split the family ... The family is essential to the growth of human beings and television can be an integrative force in the family rather than a divisive one."[6]
Done. FunnyMath (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph: This content is again all about the Neighborhood and doesn't fit here, so I would cut it. This brings up a piece of feedback: I don't think you do a good enough job at mining your sources; this seems to be an issue for most of the sources you use. For example, you don't use enough information from the King book, especially about why Rogers wanted to produce this particular series. I suggest that you look at what King writes (chapter 15, "On Hiatus"), take notes, and then summarize the information about Old Friends, not about the other shows he produced during this time or about the Neighborhood.
I agree and I cut most of it out. I was being conservative with adding information from the King book; I only added what I thought were the most important points. I will definitely reread that chapter as well as other sources to see if I missed anything.
Still, shouldn't we mention a little bit about what happened after Old Friends ended? I noticed on a quick reread of the King book that Basil Cox said "After experiencing being away from the Neighborhood for a while, and being relieved of the pressure of having to produce for it—[Fred] took some pleasure in thinking about going back to it again. And I think he came to terms with who he was. He was Mister Rogers."[7] Maybe that sounds too biographical to be included, but I think it's worth to mention how Rogers changed during his hiatus. FunnyMath (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I think I agree. Go ahead and add that info, about the aftermath of Old Friends and Rogers' realization that producing the Neighborhood was what he was supposed to do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do. FunnyMath (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funding: I think that instead of putting this content in short paragraphs in a separate section, you could put it in the "Background" section.

Done. I added it to the "Background" section under a "Funding" subsection. FunnyMath (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release: Again, you could put the one sentence here in another one, perhaps in "Production".

Done. FunnyMath (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception: A stronger section, although it again relies too much on quotes.

You're right. I'll fix it later. FunnyMath (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes: I don't have much experience summarizing the plots of episodes in charts, so take this advice with a grain of salt: the plot summaries may be too long.

Yes, the summaries are indeed too long. I have a habit of adding too much information on the first run, and then cutting stuff out later. Old Friends is an interesting case; there is currently no way to buy and access all 20 episodes. There's only snippets of the show available on YouTube, so we have to rely on secondary sources for plot summaries rather than referencing the episodes directly. Even with that limitation, I believe that we can still give an adequate summary for all episodes using newspaper clippings and the Family Communications catalog. FunnyMath (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works cited: I don't see FCI's mailing list as a reference, so I'm confused about its inclusion as a source.

Fixed. I was planning on using that source for the "No." and "Awards" table columns in the "Episodes" section. However, the URL for it was blacklisted, so I wasn't able to cite it properly and so I left it unused. I managed to get it whitelisted, so now it can be used. I also managed to add an additional source that corrects an error in the numbering in the catalog. FunnyMath (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About that and ref43: I think it'd be better if you put it in a note. See Template:Refn. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunnyMath (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're off to a good start, and that this article has a lot of potential to be a high quality, interesting, important article. I hope my feedback is helpful; let me know how else I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. They were very useful. I agree that the article has great potential, and can maybe even reach Good Article status one day. I wasn't able to fully address all of your feedback immediately today, but I will fix all the problems you brought up as I keep editing the draft. I'll let you know if I need your help again. FunnyMath (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me know how else I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Mister Rogers' Starting New Venture On TV". Sunday News. No. 55 Years, No. 36. Associated Press. May 22, 1977. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  2. ^ "Older 'kids' may watch Mr. Rogers". The Morning Call. No. No. 27, 797. Associated Press. June 15, 1976. Retrieved August 8, 2020. {{cite news}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ Jackson, Kathy Merlock (February 17, 2016). "Social Activism for the Small Set". In Jackson, Kathy Merlock; Emmanuel, Steven M. (eds.). Revisiting Mister Rogers' Neighborhood: Essays on Lessons about Self and Community. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Publishers. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-4766-2341-2.
  4. ^ a b "Mister Rogers says he is not going off the air". The News-Chronicle. No. Vol. XLVIII, No. 64. March 7, 1975. Retrieved August 8, 2020. {{cite news}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ King, p. 232.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference hanauer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ King, p. 240.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Fred Rogers created and hosted a television documentary series called Old Friends ... New Friends due to his concern that older generations were getting more isolated from younger generations? Source: Sunday News
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I only have one DYK credit, so no need for QPQ.

Created by FunnyMath (talk). Self-nominated at 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Old Friends ... New Friends; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Great article! You should take it to GA too perhaps. BorgQueen (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! I will certainly try to promote it to GA. FunnyMath (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Friends_..._New_Friends&oldid=1209358047"