Talk:BabyFirst/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bentvfan54321 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this review. I'll be somewhat busy over the next couple of days, but I will certainly post some initial comments by the end of the week. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through the main section of the article. I'm too busy right now to take a good look at the references and links, but I hope to have that done before the end of the weekend.
 * Given the length of the article, I'd suggest expanding the lead section from where it is now (three sentences) to maybe two paragraphs, or at least a longer single paragraph. See WP:LEAD for more information.
 * Change all instances of "Direct TV" to "DirecTV", and link its first appearance in the lead.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Its first broadcast was on Mother's Day (May 11) 2006 through Direct TV. It was made available through EchoStar's Dish Network that June. " I'd suggest a change to something like, "The network was launched on May 11, 2006 on DirecTV and was later made available through EchoStar's Dish Network that June.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "BabyFirst was controversial when it was introduced…" was the fact that it was the first network of its kind the only reason? Did anything else make the network controversial, and if so, is there a source to back that claim up?
 * The word "controversial" is from Citation 5, the Rocky Mountain News, which says "BabyFirst TV, a controversial." It does not explicitly say "controversial for _____" but it's reasonably apparent it's referring to "the first 24-hour network aimed at children as young as 6 months old." The New York Times source (citation 6) does not explicitly use the word "controversy" but also verifies that BabyFirst "became the first 24-hour cable and satellite network to offer programming aimed at viewers between 6 months and 3 years old" and the DirectTV bit. I don't think I would go as far as "first of its kind" - it was just considered the first to go quite as young as it did, but there were many TV programs aimed at babies before them. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This won't be enough to keep the article from reaching GA. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many instances of "In [year]" that are missing a comma after that phrase. For example, the last paragraph in the Distribution expansion section begins with, "In the early 2000s the Federal Trade Commission..." while the last sentence, which is correct, reads, "As of 2014, it has 81 million viewers…"
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "...and the former chairman of Disney TV Rich Frank…" I think it might read better if it was changed to "...and Rich Frank, the former chairman of Disney TV…"
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ""decidedly unhurried". It makes extensive use of bright colors and upbeat music." I'd combine the two sentences to say something like, "The New York Times described the content as "decidedly unhurried" and argued that it makes extensive use of bright colors and upbeat music.
 * ✅ Except I didn't use the word "argued" as it was just a description of the channel, as oppose to a position in a debate. I used "said" CorporateM (Talk) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * An App available to AT&T U-verse viewers…" use a lowercase "a" in "app".
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Some experts say", "Parents in-turn say", "BabyFirst says"… that seems like an overuse of the word "say". I'd replace most of those if possible, perhaps, "Some experts argue", "Parents in-turn refute that argument, claiming…" and "BabyFirst suggests"
 * Do you mind doing the honors? You may have seen my COI disclosure and this is one of those things where a COI often creates the appearance of impropriety, by using "claims" for viewpoints they want to discredit and "states" for POVs they want to support, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I'll take care of that. Give me a minute…" --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to The Washington Post very little is known…" insert comma between "Post" and "very".
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, the prose looks okay, it just needs some minor cleanup. I'll take a look at the references within the next few days, hopefully sooner than later. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review
General note: Make sure all the works in the refs are linked on their first appearances (e.g. link ''The Hollywood Reporter in ref 1 but not in ref 12).
 * If you feel strongly, I can do this, but I feel it's over-linking. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Again mot a requirement for GA, but this may come up at an FAC should you take it there. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Replace the url in ref 15 with "http://variety.com/2008/more/news/time-warner-to-carry-babyfirst-1117985425/"
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Refs 10, 23, and 27 all have urls ending with ".comews", while ref 4 ends with "ypost.com." Make sure those are fixed. Ref 18 needs an access date.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, the refs look great with few problems and no major plagiarism concerns. Fix these issues and expand the lead slightly (doesn't have to be much), and I'll give it a pass.

Oh, one more minor thing. Link DirecTV in the lead section. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the article is strong enough for GA as all major issues have been resolved. Nice work, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead
How about this for the Lead:
 * BabyFirst is a media company that produces and distributes content for babies through television, the internet and mobile apps. The content is intended to develop a baby's skills, such as color recognition, counting and vocabulary. There are about 90 BabyFirst TV shows and 41 apps for mobile devices. As of 2014, it is distributed to 81 million homes. The network is based in Los Angeles, California.


 * BabyFirst was founded in 2004 by Guy Oranim and Sharon Rechter. Its first broadcast was through DirectTV in 2006. It was funded by Regency Enterprises, Kardan, and Bellco Capital. Distribution expanded through agreements with the Echostar Dish Network, Comcast, AT&T U-verse and others. It also developed a premium BabyFirst YouTube channel, and mobile apps. One app developed with AT&T U-verse allows babies to interact with the television programming by drawing on a mobile device.
 * CorporateM (Talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)