Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue's Clues/archive4


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC).

Blue's Clues

 * Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the groundbreaking children's TV show (and my son's favorite thing in the universe). It's been through some major changes since its last FAC, and I feel that it's ready to be scrutinized. Enjoy! And remember, you can do anything you want to do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll try to take a closer look at this later on. I remember that I opposed one of the past FACs for this article, and a cursory inspection looks better. One issue that jumped out at me was that the citations in the explanatory notes are not consistently formatted. The way they are done in note 2 is ideal, since that matches the rest of the article. The MOS doesn't allow mixing parenthetical references (like in notes 3–5) with footnoted citations. The direct external link in note 1 is right out. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know that I'd appreciate it. You're right; your opposition, SO, was the reason for its last failure, and rightly so.  You were correct in saying that this article needed more content summarized from studies, and since I didn't have the time to work on it, I withdrew the nomination.  When I finally found the time, I did some more research, added some important content, and the article is much improved as a result.  I also fixed the MOS problem; I believe all notes are consistent now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * Charles and Matlin captions should end in periods
 * Done.


 * Burns image: summary states that copyright holder gives "full privilege of this image to Wikipedia under the terms of fair use", which would seem to be both non-free and inconsistent with the given licensing tag - can we clarify the status of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, the statement you quoted was made by the creator of the image, and he created the licensing tag, too. Perhaps he tagged the image incorrectly?  I suppose I could just go and correct his error, but would that be appropriate?  Or do we have to contact him and ask if it could be done? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the statement suggests he doesn't really understand how licensing works, at least not in the Wikipedia context; however, as the account hasn't edited from 2008 I don't know that there's much chance of asking him. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So does that mean we should AGF, assume that he meant to release it, and just go and change the licensing? To be honest, I'm also good with scraping it, since it's not a very good image anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Change it to what, though? I'm all for AGF, but it's not clear to me under what license he intended to release it. It's also tagged for transfer to Commons, but with that summary on it would likely be deleted there. Any ideas? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word that the image would probably be deleted at Commons, so I went ahead and removed it from this article. I think it's for the best.  This article has in common the same issue with many articles about children's television programs: lack of images, due to protective copyrights. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, images look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Source for Emmy noms?
 * Be consistent in how multi-author works are formatted, both in short cites and full refs
 * Be consistent in how short cites using et al. are formatted
 * Above fixed/checked.


 * Check for duplicate cites, for example FNs 1 and 11
 * Actually, this wasn't a duplicate; it was a typo. Ref 1 is part 1 and ref 2 is part 2.  D'oh! ;)


 * Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
 * FNs 86 and 87 should use endashes not emdashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All done now. Wow Nikki, it always amazes me--the things you catch!  Your attention to detail is remarkable.  Thanks so much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Taking a look now - free time is patchy so this may be a bit piecemeal....queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  In 1990, Congress passed the Children's Television Act, but the legislation did not specify how many hours of programming broadcasters were required to air. - you need to explain what the act was supposed to do, as is, article jumps into specifics rather suddenly.
 * 'Kay, didn't think it was possible since it's linked, but have done as you asked.
 * Yeah, I know it was linked, but just a little explanation like what you just added helps the flow alot. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The character Blue was originally conceived as a cat, and the name of the show was to be "Blue's Prints", but Blue became a dog and the name was changed because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat. - what was that?
 * People have asked that before. I can't tell you because none of the sources tell what it was.
 * Damn, I was curious to know....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Casting was an important part of the success of Blue's Clues. - be good to have some follow-on explanation here.
 * Um, I do explain it, when I describe the casting of the different characters. I can see that the statement's a little vague, so I can omit it if you like.
 * Not just yet - am thinking about this bit. Did muse upon moving para 1 down to para 3 and moving paras 2 and 3 up. If this is done, the sentence could be removed. But not sure if this is an unequivocal improvement....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a terrible idea, so I went ahead and did it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Traci Paige Johnson was cast as Blue's voice because, of the show's crew, she sounded the most like a dog. - ??? how/why?
 * Um, she went, "Bark-bark-bark". What are you asking here?
 * Well, it is an odd statement that begs for some embellishment - if none can be added, so be it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the Behind the Music documentary says that they decided to use staff as Blue's voice, and so they went around the conference table and she was chosen because she sounded most like a dog. Is that the embellishment you're talking about?  I didn't include it because it seemed so weird, but I can make it work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Outside comment: I understand what is meant, though it sounded odd to my ears at first too. Does "she was able to sound the most like a dog" work? I've boldly changed that, but please feel free to revert if you don't like the wording. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 *  Also according to Johnson, Joe's character was more like a preschooler and more innocent than Steve. - needs a ref.


 * NB: mdashes are unspaced.
 * Where? Could you please give me examples?
 * I meant they should be - fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing them for me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 *  It was a smash hit, largely due to the intensive and extensive research its producers employed - "intensive and extensive" comes across as laboured. I think one adjective is enough here, just choose a good one.....
 * All the above addressed. Thanks, looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

To conclude - have read over this more - I think it is looking pretty good. Will read again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm glad. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support in comprehensivenessa and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

 * Some places use the serial comma (e.g. "children's programming, educational software, and licensing"), while other places omit it (e.g. "Producers Angela Santomero, Todd Kessler and Traci Paige Johnson"). I don't mind helping fix this as I proofread, but which do you prefer?
 * I prefer the serial comma. I'll go through and check too.  Thanks for the catch.


 * I don't understand why the 1997 FCC ruling is relevant. Blues Clues had already premiered by then, and it did not affect Nickelodeon's programming obligations.
 * It establishes that Nick had already done the right thing in regards to children's programming. It serves as background for the setting and situation of the time.
 * Ah, I see. What if you started the History section with this? "Blue's Clues was developed during a transitional period for children's television. In 1990, Congress had passed the..." That way, the relevance is completely clear to the reader. (If you can think of more accurate wording than "transitional period", that's fine.) – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I like your wording just fine, so I added it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Who was Johnson quoting in the interior quote of "he didn't want to be a children's host..."?
 * That was an error in how the quote was presented. I fixed it, and it's more clear now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel like the following clause, while grammatical, are a tad confusing and could use rewording.
 * "most other US TV shows made for young children were violent and created for the purpose of selling toys"—"Made" looks at first like a verb, though it's a description; "young children were violent" look like a meaningful segment, though the juxtaposition is accidental; "created" looks like a verb saying what the shows did, but you're saying that they were created.
 * I see your point. Changed it to: "...and most other US educational TV shows were violent and were created for the purpose of selling toys."  I wanted to be specific about the audience of these shows, but after thinking about it, I don't think it's necessary to be so specific, since the statement probably also applied to shows for older kids.
 * That's very clear and concise, thank you. – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "but Blue became a dog and the name was changed because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat"—This sounds like the name was changed because of the existing cat show, but it sounds like the species was changed for this reason. (It isn't obvious why the name changed, but it doesn't seem related to the species.)
 * Another good point. I simply added the word "show's" to make it clearer.
 * I changed the order of the phrases to improve clarity. (As with all my changes for this review, please feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree.) – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "a DVD compilation of "milestone" episodes that included first host Steve Burns' 2002 departure and a 12-minute retrospective..."—I think you mean the DVD included these things, the compilation of episodes included them.
 * I re-structured the sentence, so that it's clearer now.
 * "His role was to empower, challenge and increase the viewers' self-esteem"—he wasn't there to challenge their self-esteem. Later comment: I see now that this is very close to a direct quote at the top of the "Educational goals" section. I think that sentence should be entirely reworded for two reasons: it's grammatically unclear, and it's too close to the source's wording.
 * I cut the offending phrase because you're right, it does essentially say the same thing as the next sentence, and then did some cutting and clarifying. Hopefully, it's satisfactory now.


 * The text says the each episode was tested "in preschool environments such as Head Start programs, public schools, and private daycare centers". Two sentences later, it says the pilot was tested "at daycare centers, preschools, and Head Start programs throughout the New York City area". That feels a tad redundant. If you simply said "at various locations throughout the New York City area" would any information be lost?
 * No, it wouldn't, and of course you're right about the redundancy. In the sentence about the pilot, I cut everything except "throughout the NYC area". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "who had to translate and embody the vision of the show on-screen"—I don't really know what that means.
 * I changed that before, by striking the sentence because it seemed repetitious to me.
 * Oh yeah... Okay, that's resolved. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Does cite 53 (Tracy, pp. 42–43) cover the statement about Fruit Stripe gum, or just the quote about textures and colors?
 * Yes it does, but I went ahead and inserted the extra ref.
 * The sourcing is now much improved. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Does cite 73 (Tracy, pp. 54–57) cover every claim in the second half of that paragraph, from producer and director credits, to soundtrack info, to the claim that "young audience enthusiastically accepted [Tom Mizer]", to script changes, to sorts of humor used? I want to doublecheck, because the "enthusiastically accepted" claim in particular needs support.
 * I added more refs and changed the wording a bit.
 * Excellent, the sourcing is quite tight here. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note 4 includes a direct quote: "Not even the developers of the software knew it could be used to create character animation on scale Blue's Clues was using it". There seems to be a missing article before "scale". Was that error in the source, or in the transcription?
 * Most likely in the transcription. Thanks for the catch.


 * "As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances [of the live production]." Is there any data more recent than that? (A five-year-old that saw the show in 2002 would be 17 now.)
 * Yes, that's the most recent information. I wasn't able to find how long the show ran, or if it's still in production.  Remember that BC is aging; if a child was five when the show premiered in 1996, he or she would be 23 now--a college student.  Yikes! ;)
 * Ah well, we can't go beyond the sources. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "...with five-to-ten signs used consistently in each episode"—at first I thought that meant signs for the numbers 5–10. It would be clearer if reworded as "with between five and ten signs used".
 * Ok, whatever you say. ;) Fixed as per your request.


 * The penultimate paragraph (beginning "David Gesler...") is brief and problematic, made up of two unrelated parts. The first two sentences are about a Murray prof who "used Blue's Clues" (somehow) to introduce research methods to undergraduates. It's not very well described, and leaves the reader unsure of what went on, or how it relates to the rest of the section, which is all about preschoolers. The second part is a single sentence about how Blue's Clues is not technically interactive. I think the part about Gesler's use at Murray should be omitted, since it feels like confusing trivia that doesn't fit in well with the rest. Then the sentence about Shalom M. Fisch would be more at home in paragraph 2 of "Influence", which describes three different studies and directly relates to whether the show is interactive, and in what ways.
 * Done as you suggest, although I separated the 2nd paragraph after inserting the Fisch comment because the rest of the paragraph, about the Bryant study is a different topic.
 * Excellent. But there seems to be a Cite error now... – Quadell (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead mentions "rumors that surrounded his [Steve Burns'] departure", but I don't see where this is mentioned in the article body.
 * Thanks for the catch; it was an artifact of a previous version that went more in depth about Burns' departure. This brings up a question for me, though: I made an editorial decision to exclude any details about it (i.e., that there were persistent rumors about his death, possible drug overdose, ect., and that was the reason he left the show) because I thought it better belonged in Steve's bio.  To be honest, another reason, I decided to not include it here was that the vandalism about the rumors is a pain to deal with.  (I swear, it amazes me how, almost ten years after the show stopped production, how persistent it is; to this day, we still have to deal with people--usually anonymous IPs--who believe it and insist that it's true, despite evidence to the contrary.)  Anyway, do you think that we should include it here, anyway?
 * In my opinion, the debate/confusion applies directly to the actor, but does not directly apply to the show. So I think it's most appropriate to keep it in the biography article, not here. – Quadell (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think it applies to the show either. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll continue reviewing over the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it muchly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Finished with your comments thus far. Thanks, looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. I'll finish the review as soon as I can. – Quadell (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input thus far. Helpful as always! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished my review and copyedit. Those last two issues are all that remain. – Quadell (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All done addressing them. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. After a careful review, I think this passes all our FA criteria. All my concerns have been addressed, and I'm impressed with the article. – Quadell (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

 * History
 * "PBS was one of the few sources for children's educational television programming in the U.S., and most other US educational TV shows were violent and were created for the purpose of selling toys." needs a WP:IC and clearer context (the beginning of the paragraph is talking about 1990 and the end 1997). --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added both; ref 4 applied to everything before it, but I added the extra one anyway.


 * "show about a cat", which one?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Already addressed above; the sources don't tell us.


 * Format
 * This section is oddly devoid of wikification. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a few more. I try to avoid over-linking, and many of the terms in this section have already been linked.  Please, if you think I've missed any, go ahead and add them.

Done with Tony's comments; waiting eagerly for more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Educational goals
 * When you say viewer participation are you talking about kids standing up and talking to the television? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yum, yeah. The statement says that the kids "actively participated with what they saw".  What is it you want me to do?
 * The first time you use the phrase you need to say viewer participation (exhibited by oral or physical response), IMO. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added the phrase "in the form of spoken or physical response from the audience" the first time it's mentioned.


 * Production
 * When you say "Each episode . . . took approximately one year to complete" do you mean that scripts were worked on individually. It would seem to me that since there was such a repetitive element to the show that maybe they worked on several scripts at a time in production or at least some elements of them were worked on in that way. Otherwise, I can't fathom 1 year/episode. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the source says. The process it took to complete an episode was a year.  Yes, I'm sure they didn't work on just one episode at a time, but I don't think that's what this is saying here.
 * Well later they say that they played the same episode every day. I am a bit confused here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure I can help you with that. ;) I think that this is a case of being unfamiliar with television production. What do you think of this: "Each episode was in development, from idea development to final production, for approximately one year."


 * Reception
 * It is 2014 and nothing in this section seems to detail anything about the last 10 years. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, although the show still runs on Nickelodeon, it ended production in 2006. The most recent study conducted on it was in 2009.  The show is aging, and as it ages, it's receiving less and less attention.
 * Where in the main text does it say when the show ended?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you say original production ended but repeats continue to air somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, since there's no source out there that states that the show still re-runs on Nick Jr. or that Amazon Prime or that DVDs are still sold. I guess I could add it, but wouldn't that be OR? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point, I am ready to Support this article for promotion, although I would encourage further wikification in general.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria
This is a nice article and I'll be supporting, but a few nitpick - haven't read all the way through yet: " largely due to the extensive research its producers employed" > largely due to the producers' research? For some reason "employed" stopped me in my tracks.
 * History
 * That's research-speech; changed.


 * Casting
 * Mention the year/date Patton replaced Burns?
 * It states in the previous paragraph that Burns left in 2002.
 * Thanks, I glazed over! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Format
 * Consider moving the long blockquote from the very top of the section. It renders in very small font and I skipped right over it!
 * I'd like to keep it there, if I may. This section has been through different formats, and other editors have advised me to put the blockquote first, since its current organization (a description of the format followed by explaining its purpose) makes most sense.
 * Okay, I had a sense it was probably something you've worked on a bit. Not a problem really. Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Educational goals
 * The parenthical about Wilder joining later - maybe make that a note?
 * Done.


 * "They found that as the pilot progressed, not only was children's attention captured and sustained, but they became excited and actively participated with what they saw, to the point that they stood up to get closer to the television and spoke back to the host.[42]" > something wrong here: I'm having problems with the "not only was" (were?)
 * Technically, it's grammatically correct, since the "was" modifies "attention", not "captured and sustained". But I've learned to trust editors' instincts, especially if they're native speakers.  I changed it to: "They found that as the pilot progressed, children's attention was not only captured and sustained, but they became excited and actively participated with what they saw..."
 * This reads better, thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible for most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent".[36]" Maybe rewrite to remove repetition of "that" that and something is missing in front of a "cultural artifact"
 * Reworded to: "Twenty years worth of research had showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible to most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent"." I think it's improved.


 * Ref needed at the end of fourth paragraph
 * Done.


 * "Like what had already been done in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers" > maybe "similar to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers"
 * Ok, done.


 * Production
 * day care or daycare?
 * Day care.
 * Fix daycare in this section? Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lots of use of subjunctive "would" > I removed some, but maybe check for more
 * I saw that, thanks. I'll look for more myself when I return in a little while. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Came back to complete; I think that things are improved in this area now.


 * "The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was unlike that in most other children's shows. The music was simple, had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments." > suggest simplifying and combining: "The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was simple had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments" to leave out the comparative "was unlike ...."
 * Done.

I'll finish reading through tomorrow, but wanted to mention that at a quick glance, the "Influence" section seems stuffed compared to the other shorter sections. Any way to split it up? I haven't read it yet, so no suggestions. Nice job! Oh, and by the way - for some reason I did not know Blue was female! Victoria (tk) 01:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about putting in some subsections? I'll wait until you get to your comments about this section before I proceed.  Ha ha, you wouldn't believe how many people don't know that Blue's a girl!  I actually almost got into fisticuffs with another mom about it! ;) Thanks for your comments; looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, don't see how you can, answered below (got caught in an edit conflict). Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * "Other countries have produced regional versions of the show" > flip, so as to read: "Regional versions of the show have been produced in other countries"? (make the show the subject?)
 * Done.


 * Influence
 * I've read it now and see that all this material goes together, but am wondering whether a more appropriate section title might work to highlight that much of the section explains the underlying research on childhood development and media? Is that a way of characterizing? Anyway, it's an interesting section and haven't found any nitpicks there.
 * This is pretty standard practice for articles such as this. I suppose we could re-name the section "Research findings".  Does anyone else have an opinion?
 * Quick question: does the research influence how other such pre-school TV shows are developed? If so, then I think influence is fine. If the sources specifically say that research about Blue's Clues is valuable in terms of developing similar productions, might be worth leading the section with a statement to that effect. I should probably have a look at your other articles to see how it's done there before making a mess here! Victoria (tk) 17:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BC research hasn't really affected children's TV all that much, and there hasn't been much in the literature about it. Sesame Street research definitely affected the production of BC, and that's stated in this article.  The practice of moving from a magazine format to a more narrative one influenced SS, which is also stated here and in those articles, which I also work on.  It's standard practice for Nickelodeon to use research in the production of all their shows, but it's almost always been that way, although that's not something I've seen in the literature, either.  So the reason why your suggestion isn't in this article is that there's nothing out there about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining - I think, more than anything, I was simply curious. It's interesting stuff and you've done a nice job presenting. You've taken care of all the issues I had. Victoria (tk) 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: As I said, nice job! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.