Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA3

GA Review
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:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) ** Major Point 1: Background "Sesame Street has had a history of ... and that was the case for "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce"." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 6) ** Major Point 2: Development "The show's producers had expressed a desire to ... reviewed by the Children's Television Workshop's (CTW) advisory board, content experts, and developmental psychologists." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 7) ** Major Point 3: Test results "After tests showed that their young viewers were ... despite the costs." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 8) ** Major Point 4: Legacy "Sesame Street did not address ... which featured the Muppet Abby Cadabby." (not a concise summary of the Legacy section)
 * 9) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 10) ** Major Point 1: Background "Sesame Street has had a history of ... and that was the case for "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce"." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 11) ** Major Point 2: Development "The show's producers had expressed a desire to ... reviewed by the Children's Television Workshop's (CTW) advisory board, content experts, and developmental psychologists." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 12) ** Major Point 3: Test results "After tests showed that their young viewers were ... despite the costs." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 13) ** Major Point 4: Legacy "Sesame Street did not address ... which featured the Muppet Abby Cadabby." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
 * 14) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 16) *** ""Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce" is an episode of the children's television program Sesame Street." good (Definition is established (WP:BETTER))
 * 17) *** "Produced in 1992, it never aired because tests showed several unintended negative effects." good (Notability is established (WP:BETTER))
 * 18) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 19) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 20) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 21) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 22) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 23) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 24) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 25) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 26) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 27) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 28) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 29) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 30) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 31) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 32) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: None
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  None

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

None


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

NA

Check for WP:BLP: NA


 * 1) Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE):
 * 2) * Check for Tone:
 * 3) * Check for Balance (WP:COAT):
 * 4) Check for Reliable sources:
 * 5) * Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES):
 * 6) * Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE):
 * 7) * Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP):
 * 8) * Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY):
 * 9) * Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS):
 * 10) * Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL):
 * 11) Check for Presumption in favor of privacy:
 * 12) * Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM):
 * 13) * Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE):
 * 14) * Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB):
 * 15) * Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF):
 * 16) * Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E):
 * 17) * Check for Persons accused of crime[ (WP:BLPCRIME):
 * 18) * Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):

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.

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: Yes
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) ** Borgenicht, David. (New York: Hyperion Publishing)
 * 7) ** Davis, Michael. (New York: Viking Penguin)
 * 8) ** Gikow, Louise A. (New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers)
 * 9) ** Morrow, Robert W. (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press)
 * 10) ** Truglio, Rosemary T. et al. (Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers)
 * 11) ** Guernsey, Lisa (Newsweek)
 * 12) ** Muriel, Cohen (The Boston Globe).
 * 13) ** Alaton, Salam (The Globe and Mail (Thomson Group))
 * 14) ** (The Herald Sun)
 * 15) ** Newman, Richard J. (U.S. News & World Report)
 * 16) ** Hanes, Stephanie (The Christian Science Monitor)
 * 17) ** The Advertiser (News Corporation)
 * 18) ** Hartford, Courant (The Gazette (Montreal))
 * 19) ** Dawidziak, Mark (Cleveland Plain Dealer)
 * 20) ** Walters, Laurel Shaper (The Christian Science Monitor)
 * 21) ** West, Abby (Entertainment Weekly)
 * 22) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 23) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 24) * What else has the author published?:
 * 25) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 26) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 27) * New York: Hyperion Publishing
 * 28) * New York: Viking Penguin
 * 29) * New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers
 * 30) * Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press
 * 31) * Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers
 * 32) * Newsweek
 * 33) * The Boston Globe
 * 34) * The Globe and Mail (Thomson Group)
 * 35) * The Herald Sun
 * 36) * U.S. News & World Report
 * 37) * The Christian Science Monitor
 * 38) * News Corporation
 * 39) * The Gazette (Montreal)
 * 40) * Cleveland Plain Dealer
 * 41) * The Christian Science Monitor
 * 42) * Entertainment Weekly
 * 43) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) * "listening to the voices of children and by putting their needs first",[1]
 * 3) * "extensive research and planning".[4]
 * 4) * "poignant",[8]
 * 5) * "Davis called it "a landmark broadcast"[9]
 * 6) * "a truly memorable episode, one of the show's best".[10]
 * 7) * "My two projects for this year are drugs and divorce. Divorce is a difficult one. Perhaps we could do it with puppets. I am also writing a script on drugs and peer pressure".[15]
 * 8) * "divorce is a middle-class thing," ... [16]
 * 9) * "We were really nervous about the show, and we didn't think it was a shoo-in. When you're dealing with something like death, the approach can be universal. But with divorce, it's so personal. People react differently."[17] (Random check on source 17, inaccessible, check on Google, query source "'D' Won't Do for Divorce.", 0 results, query quote "But with divorce, it's so personal. People react differently", 10 results, this quote is used in another RS (The Baltimore Sun, title: After preview, 'Sesame Street' cancels a show on divorce) in the context of 'Sesame Street', so check is roughly successful )
 * 10) * "We hope to get to it by the end of the season. It always takes us a while to figure out how to do an issue appropriately, from a child's point of view".[20]
 * 11) * "Now we delve into things like divorce that are likely to affect small children very heavily. We didn't touch those things before".[22]
 * 12) * "about how Snuffy will have good homes, and so on and so on".[19]
 * 13) * "it bombed".[19]
 * 14) * "The kids came away with negative messages ... The kids misunderstood arguments. They said arguments did mean divorce. Some thought Snuffy's parents were moving away even though we said just the opposite. A number said the parents would no longer be in love with them".[17]
 * 15) * "They wrote a whole show and taped it, and it was just devastating for test groups of kids. So they just threw the whole thing in the garbage and never tried it again. It was just too difficult a concept for a 3-year-old".[23]
 * 16) * "back to the drawing board" ... [25]
 * 17) * "We ate the cost and never aired it. We feel there are a range of issues that we can deal with in the family that do not go to the extreme of divorce".[25]
 * 18) * "listening to the voices of children and by putting their needs first",[1]
 * 19) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 20) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅

Major sources are not accessible. It's difficult to assess the article scope thoroughly. Rough check in parallel with criteria 2.


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) * Difficult to check. Random check using Google and ISBN.
 * 8) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 9) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 10) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (NFC with valid FUR)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) * Lead Image (Snuffy31.jpg): This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots (1) for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents, and (2) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.
 * 3) Check for copyright status:  ✅ (Non-free content)
 * 4) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅ (Yes)
 * 5) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅ (valid)
 * 6) * Source (WP:NFCC): Screenshot from the TV show
 * 7) * Use in article (WP:NFCC): Aloysius Snuffleupagus
 * 8) * Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC): To illustrate the character.
 * 9) * Replaceable?: Since he is a copyrighted character, there are no free alternatives available.

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) * Relevant to the article
 * 3) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 4) * Appropriate & Representative
 * 5) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅
 * 6) * Caption - The Muppet Mr. Snuffleupagus ("Snuffy"). succinct and informative

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)