User:Korruski/draft

Lead:
 * It immediately strikes me that the first sentence doesn't explain what the subject of the article actually is, per WP:BEGINNING. This especially important as the name of the article is vague (is it research into the characters on Sesame street? No, of course not, but it should be clear from the first line what it is about)
 * Formative and summative research: per WP:LEAD technical language should be avoided in the lead. Perhaps the terms could be replaced with laypersons explanations, or used and then summarised? If neither of these are possible, they should perhaps be bluelinks.
 * Malcolm Gladwell quote: Was Gladwell refering to Sesame Street, or were CTW actually inspired by this quote? If so, it should be made clear. If not, it's not really needed, and would be better just summed up with ordinary text and a citation to show that they were indeed working on this assumption.
 * The lead does seem to adequately summarise the content of the article, so that is good.

Overview:
 * It perhaps takes too long to refer back to the subject of the article. I know you are setting the scene, but this is basically the first paragraph of main article content and you don't mention Sesame Street Research until the third sentence.
 * If Cooney was not alone in her criticism, it would be better to mention here who else supported her, rather than in a footnote, otherwise, it is verging on a bit weasely.
 * 'Cartoons' could be wikilinked?
 * What is your source to suggest that Cooney's study was 'well received'? Although much of the rest of the sentence is cited, this claim seems not to be.
 * Boston and New York could be wikilinked?
 * 'There was some concern' is weasel words

CTW Model
 * Paragraph 2 (and again in para 3, and several other places) I personally don't like the format 'as xyz stated, "abc def"'. If the quote is itself important, then just say 'xyz stated "abc def"'. If it's not, then just summarise 'abc def' in the normal text of the article and cite it with reference to the quote. Perhaps this is personal preference, though.
 * There is no non-free media use rational for this article for TakalaniSesame-set.jpg‎.

Formative research
 * How does this tie in to the CTW model? Might it be better as a sub-heading to it? Otherwise, it's not clear what the relationship between the two is.
 * You could add sub-headings of 'methods' and 'conclusions' to break this up a bit? It seems to roughly fall into that pattern anyway.
 * The first sentence doesn't quite make sense to me. Do you mean '...used concepts from the field...'?
 * In what way were pre-schoolers more sophisticated television viewers? This seems important information. (Para 1)
 * I would be tempted to remove some or all of the information in about Palmer and his background as it lengthens an already quite wordy section with information that, while interesting, is not central to the main thrust of the article. (Para 1)
 * Does "go back to the drawing board" need to be a quote? If so, who said it? Personally, I would be a bit clearer on what they would do. Would they make specific changes based on the information received, or would they literally script a new show? The latter seems unlikely! (Para 2)

Summative research
 * Again, how does this tie in to 'The CTW model' section? Should it be a subsection?
 * Why did the CTW and ETS have a potentially adversarial nature? This is interesting, it would be good to know more.
 * Longitudional study should probably be replaced, explained or at least bluelinked

General comments:
 * Is there an image that could be used at the top of the article? A logo or something?
 * Are any pictures of Palmer available? It would be a great addition if so.
 * Are any graphs or data results available? It would help to break up what ends up being quite a bit of text.