Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/archive2


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 19:58, 11 September 2011.

Sesame Street

 * Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is with much trepidation and humility that I nominate this article for FAC. I've been working on this article for a few years now, and has been substantially improved. It was at once a FA, but was delisted in 2008, and that's when I took it on. It represents a great amount of work and research over three years. This article is essentially a series of summaries of forked articles, most of which I wrote and researched, and some of which are either FAs or GAs. It has been a labor of love. The reviewers should be warned about a few things before they take on this significant and influential subject. I remind you that this is a summary of the literature about Sesame Street; as author Michael Davis has said, there has been a "fork-lift" amount of research done on the show and its effects. The content in this article represents the most important aspects of this huge subject. As the main editor of this and other SS-themed articles, I've discovered that reviewers tend to get distracted by their memories of The Show. I would warn the FAC reviewers against that. Sesame Street is the kind of cultural phenomenon that we all, especially if we're over the age of 45, seem to have an ownership of, so many reviewers have said things like, "I remember this character or event; why isn't that in this article?" My response to that is, "It wasn't notable enough to make it." I hope that you enjoy getting to know this subject and that it gives you some of the joy I've experienced working on this article. Christine (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FFA, has been on main page Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Page ranges should consistently use endashes
 * Fixed.
 * Be consistent in how you notate multi-author refs, and whether you include all authors in shortened citations
 * Fixed, I believe.
 * Any reason why you have not done FNs 2 and 29 in the same style as the other refs to that book?
 * FN 29 was an error, so I fixed it. The reason they're not done in the same style as the other refs is because they were only used once.  My rule of thumb is that if a book and/or article is used more than once, it's placed in the "Reference" section and the citation reads something like, "Cooney in Fisch & Truglio, p. xi".  If it's only used once, the full citation is placed in the "Citations" section. Christine (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing bibliographic info for Lesser & Schneider, Zill
 * Related to the above. These were both from the "Growing" book with single references that I missed.  This was a complicated formatting issue, so I appreciate that you caught them.
 * Citations to newspaper or magazine sources without weblinks should include page numbers
 * One source didn't have the URL, but I went and found it. The others were formatted incorrectly; when I added them, I didn't know that it was okay to include "quoted in...".  Fixed now. Christine (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 1: formatting
 * My only excuse is that someone else added it. But it's correct now.  Will address rest of list later, next time I find the time. Christine (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate state names
 * Fixed.
 * Use a consistent date format
 * I re-checked; you must be referring to FN 1, which is correct now.
 * Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes inconsistencies in reference formatting
 * The only time that I used untemplated citations was with the sources cited in other sources; i.e, FN 95.
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for magazines and newspapers
 * Now consistent.
 * What is "The CW"?
 * The CW" is the television network that aired the 2009 Daytime Emmys. Do I need more information?
 * FN 37: punctuation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Maybe it was fixed when I addressed the above issue re: citing the "G is for Growing" book.
 * Thanks so much for the input. I try to be as accurate as I can re: sources, so I appreciate the extra eyes. Christine (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Media: I have removed File:Raposo joe.jpg (which unambiguously failed NFCC#10c and pretty clearly failed NFCC#8) but, other than that, it all looks OK, copyright/NFC-wise. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Comments
 * I just made this edit. Did you intend for "davis-195" to actually be page 195? Brad (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another error in a complicated reference section. I pulled out Davis to be sure; the correct source is "davis-167".  Thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Cannot find any issues preventing promotion. However, I do notice there are a lot of edits going on that are unsourced; mostly by IP addresses. In a couple of cases I've caught changes that were overlooked. I'd recommend partial protection since the changes seem to be a daily occurrence. Brad (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP edits seem to occur seasonally; it's the beginning of the school year, when more kiddies have more access to computers. There's also more attention being drawn to the article with this FAC.  I try to catch all the unsourced additions, but I'm just one person, so I miss them sometimes.  Consequently, I agree that this article should have at least partial protection.  Christine (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article appears comprehensive to me, and very well written. The images are all correctly tagged and used appropriately. The sourcing is very good, and the organization is excellent. I have a few questions/suggestions: – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is footnote #4 a footnote and not a citation?
 * Because instead of listing and describing each study, which would make the article longer and boring, the footnote directs the readers to a source that does that. Actually, the source summarizes the research, so the footnote summarizes the summary, which is what we're supposed to do, right?
 * I probably would have used a citation to hold both refs, instead of a footnote, but I'm no expert in footnote formatting, so I could be wrong. If you think a footnote is better (and no expert chimes in to say it's inappropriate to do so), then I don't object. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should footnote #6 be incorporated into the text, changing it to "As of 2010" (or even "As of 2011")?
 * No, and here's why. Ref 16 supports the statement, "As of 2009, Sesame Street has received 118 Emmy Awards, more than any other television series."  Footnote 6 states that in 2010, The Show won eight additional Emmys, which is supported by Ref 127.  There is no source that adds the 118 Emmys with the 8 won last year.  The information needs to be separated, and I thought that the most effective way to do that is with a footnote.  (Don't ask me what I'll do when they win more Emmys this year; hopefully, some source will have added them all up.) ;) Christine (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. It isn't OR to add 118 + 8, but it would be OR to assert that no other show caught up with Sesame Street last year. Makes sense. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. Perhaps a solution would be to add the Emmys together, and then to assert that The Show won the most Emmys, and put all the sources at the end of the sentence, like this, "It was has earned the most Emmys in television history; as of 2010, it won 126." Christine (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the quotes, Sherman is given context as "executive producer" and Gladwell is as "author". Should Cooney and Davis be given similar context?
 * Cooney has already been identified as The Show's creator in the very first sentence in the lead, as well as the first sentence in the article's body. Davis is identified as a "writer" also early on, in the second paragraph in the "History" section.  I could re-identify them in the quoteboxes, if you like, though.
 * I'd prefer it. It'd give context for those who skim the article and mainly look at the quotes and the captions. (I'll bet that's more people than we'd like to admit.) But it's not something to withhold FA status for, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it, so Done. Christine (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one statement in the lede is cited. Why is this statement treated differently?
 * Cause it was an error, silly. It's been fixed.  Thanks for the catch, sweetie. ;) And thanks for catching all that picky stuff! I appreciate the input. Christine (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I very much enjoyed the article. Well written, with flowing writing and organization. Every minor criticism I had I changed myself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I like that in a FA reviewer! I think it's kind of silly when reviewers direct the nominator to fix minor errors that would've taken less time to just fix it themselves. Christine (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Great content, well organized, well sourced, MoS followed impeccably, prose is excellent. – Quadell (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - In the Media sub-section, why is there a double spaced line? Also, you appear to be having issues with the last Ref.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A commented-out image; removed it so the space is gone. I have no idea what happened to that ref.  I removed it and the problem is resolved.  Thanks for the catches. Christine (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Great job with the article Christine. I really enjoyed reading about a series I used to watch! :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   22:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I note on your "to-do" list on the article talk page, you have "Bring to FAC" and "Work on locating and adding fair-use images". Now, if there is further work that needs to be done, now is not the time for FAC. However, further, (and I do not mean to imply that this is being done maliciously) this means that the images would avoid scrutiny at FAC- an area where the article faced problems last time. If images are going to be added, I feel they should be added before the article faces FAC. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. I suppose I should've removed the item about images before bringing this article here.  You should know, though, that I think that I've pretty much exhausted things to do to improve this article.  (What needs to be done is that all SS-related articles need improvement, but that's a discussion for another time and place.)  Images for this article have always been a struggle.  The Sesame Workshop is notoriously protective of their copyrighted characters, and for good reason.  I sent an email to them over a year ago, but got no response.  (I suppose I could write them a request through snail mail.)  My "solution" was the quoteboxes that are scattered throughout the article.  In other words, I've been working on images for this article for three years, and there simply are no free-use images that we can use here.  I had an image of Joe Raposo before this FAC, but a reviewer removed it.  If anyone has any suggestions about images, I'd be very happy to hear them. Christine (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Support with a few comments: Otherwise really nicely done. I've read parts of this article before, never had the time the comment, but my impression is that it's greatly improved. It reads well, is informative, and I enjoyed reading it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some overlinking: delink addictive in quotation,consider delinking grant. I think I saw CTW linked more than once.
 * I have such an issue with overlinking. It was a bigger issue than normal for this article because of all the forking.  I think I got all the above instances.
 * Probably better to change twenty-first century > 21st century, and fortieth to 40th
 * Done.
 * I think quote boxes should be treated as block-quotes and not have the quotation marks
 * Ok, done.
 * What were the "social goals" Hensen expected to get from joining Sesame Street?
 * I don't really want to get into that; I don't think a lengthly discussion is warranted here. I also think that the phrase is adequate enough to describe Henson's motivations. Christine (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about - was curious, is all. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Support This is an incredible article. Well written and meticulously researched. The only thing lacking in the article, not a big deal to me, are images depicting the show itself. Sesame Street is a unique visual experience, and it seems a shame that such images are difficult to obtain.AstroCog (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Astrocog, and thanks to TK, too. I agree with you regarding the (lack of) images in this article.  It's really a shame, because the philosophy of the CW and Wikipedia are so similar.  Fortunately, there are lots of opportunities to sample both the colorful and rich sights and sounds of The Show. Christine (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Support and comment: Love the job you've done on the article. I see you have the various audio formats of the show listed in the infobox, but not the video formats (e.g. 480p, 720p, 1080i, etc). If you have access to that information, it would be nice to see it in the infobox too. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, I don't have access to that information.  I don't even know if the audio formats are correct, since they were added by someone else and they're unsourced.  Personally, I'd like to remove all that information, since I believe that big infoboxes are ugly, so the less information listed in it the better. Christine (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I still see some prose/MOS problems:
 * Why do you italicize "'s" in Sesame Street's?
 * Do you want the honest answer? There are two: 1) because I'm lazy; and 2) because I personally oppose that style requirement.  But I "corrected" them, anyway, just 'cause you asked nicely. ;)

Ucucha (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't make sense of the phrase "Morrow credited the CTW's commitment to multiculturalism as the source for many of their conflicts with the leadership of minority groups". They got into conflict with minority groups because they were committed to multiculturalism?
 * Sorry about that. I clarifed the sentence like this: In spite of their commitment to multiculturalism, the CTW experienced conflicts with the leadership of minority groups, especially Latino groups and feminists, who objected to Sesame Street's depiction of Latinos and women.  It's closer to the source, anyway, without being too close of a paraphrase. Christine (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's clearer. Ucucha (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.