Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Sesame Street/archive1

History of Sesame Street
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has FA potential. It's also an important and interesting article. You'll see that it was nominated for GA, and failed, but I believe that at this point, it fulfills the criteria, anyway. (If any reviewer would like to pass it in the process of this review, that would be helpful.)

Thanks, --Christine (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read it, but looks attractive at a quick glance. The image captions should be shortened per Captions, and the standalone quotes reduced and/or integrated into the text body per Quotations.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate starting out a review with contraryness, but I think I'll wait on addressing this issue until others have weighed in about the use of captions and quoteboxes. --Christine (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, and finding more images, I've addressed this issue by removing the first quotebox and replacing it with a more appropriate image of Joan Ganz Cooney. --Christine (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long on this review. I learned a lot reading this article, but feel it needs a fair amount of polish before it would pass at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * And sorry it's taken me so long to address these comments.


 * I would be careful with statements like this from the lead: By its 40th anniversary in 2009, even the U.S. government recognized Sesame Street as "the most widely viewed children's television show in the world",[1] with twenty independent international versions and broadcasts in over 120 countries.[1] First off, the ref cited is from 2006, so it really does not back up the "in 2009" aspect of the claim. Second, I think one ouse of the ref per sentence is sufficient. Third, the "even the US Government" part smacks a bit to me of POV.
 * Addressed by removing the quote and restructuring what was left. --Christine (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the lead goes into too much detail on the dinner party and not enough on some other parts of the article. This is partly a WP:WEIGHT issue, but my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * One of my weaknesses as a WP editor is my leads. I find them so difficult to write.  Addressed the above by removing the reference to the dinner party and restructuring the paragraph a bit. --Christine (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:HEAD says not to use "The" in headers if at all possible. So could The 1970s just be 1970s (etc.?
 * Done.


 * Please read WP:NFCC carefully - there are five fair use images in the article now, which may be too much. The title card seems standard for TV shows, and the image of Oscar with Gordon and Susan also seems fine. Mr Hooper's death is discussed at length, so that is probably OK too. My guess is that the Elmo's World image could be OK if the text discussed why showing his legs is an innovation. Much as I like Bert and Ernie, the image of them seems most decorative and least likely to pass NFCC.
 * The EW's image is there because it depicts Elmo in the segment, not because it demonstrates the puppetry. I chose it simply because I liked it.  There are other screen shots I could've used, like one with Elmo standing in his crayon-house.  Would you suggest that we use a different image?  Regarding the B&E image: should we swap that out, too?  Emilio Delgado (Luis) and Roscow Orman (Gordon)'s images are free; we could even use Ray Charles and The Carpenters, since they recorded SS songs.--Christine (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So I was able to find a good image of Jon Stone; it's also a non-free screenshot, like the B&E one, so its inclusion doesn't change the number of images. The current image demonstrates the content, so I think it's a better choice and addresses at least one of your concerns here. --Christine (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fair use rationale on this image is particularly strong. I don't think that the reader learns much about Sesame Street by seeing a picture of one of the creators. I think it is easier to justify pictures of the actual show, since the article is about the show. Awadewit (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you include these non-free images of the people, you must include a reason why a free image cannot be obtained on the non-free rationale on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw this, after responding to Ruhrfisch below. Obviously, I am in the minority about this.  To support my position, though, this article is about the show, but it's also about the people who brought it into being.  That, btw, is one of the things I appreciate the most about Davis' book; as Cooney herself said, the combination of the people involved, from the production staff to the research team, was the magic that made it all possible.  I hope that this article present the same.  That being said, if majority opinion states that the images be removed, I will do so.  Regarding the NFRs: I changed the rationale on the Stone image to reflect that he's deceased.  Was that enough?  If you wouldn't mind, could you or someone who's got it more together see if the rationales are okay, and if not, make them acceptable?  Thanks. --Christine (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Will Lee and Matt Robinson (actor) are each linked twice in the article text, for example.
 * Done. --Christine (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many places where the language needs to be tightened and a few where things either make no sense or should be moved. Here are some examples, but not a complete list:
 * In the 1980s section (death of Mr Hooper) this seems needlessly repetitive and the second sentence does not make sense to me: Parents in the study were encouraged to watch it with their children to help explain it. Following the broadcast, parent viewers were also encouraged to watch the episode with their children. After the broadcast of the show, they told parents to watch the show (which had just aired) with their children??
 * I see your point. I solved this problem by deleting the first sentence, which meant that I had to reword the following couple of sentences. --Christine (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is this sentence doing in the 2000's section? Entertainment Weekly reported in 1991 that the show's music had been honored with eight Grammys.[120]
 * There are two reasons. First, it's an artifact of earlier in this article's development, before the 90s and 2000s were separated into two sections.  Second, I was lumping the discussion of the show's awards together.  I moved it into the 90s section. --Christine (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The song Rubber Duckie being on the charts for 7 weeks is in there twice in two different sections. In the 1970s section it says this was in 1971, so it does not belong in the Premiere and first season (1969-1970) section if that is true.
 * More structuring issues, done to keep the discussion of the show's first accolades together. I deleted the phrase about the song in the premiere and first season section. --Christine (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What does this mean Roscoe Orman succeeded Matt Robinson, the original Gordon, and Hal Miller, in 1975.[76] I think it means that Roscoe was the third actor to play Gordon, but it is far from clear.
 * You're right--he was, and it is very unclear. So I reworded the sentence thusly: In 1975, Roscoe Orman became the third actor to play Gordon, succeeding Hal Miller, who had briefly replaced Matt Robinson.[76] --Christine (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1990s section there is a long list of people who died, but not much else on them - I would provide context to the reader and give a brief description of each.
 * Each were discussed earlier in the article, but I added a description of each and unlinked them. --Christine (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the pictiue caption for Michael Jeter is the only mention of him in the article. If he is important enough to be pictured, shouldn't he also be mentioned in the article itself?
 * I've changed the caption to better reflect the article, but without mentioning Jeter himself. Let me know if you think it's enough.  I think it's okay to keep him because he is an important part of "Elmo's World", and regular viewers will enjoy seeing him out of costume.  Personally, I think an image of Kevin Clash would be more appropriate, but I may be able to go grab another non-free screen capture.  What do you think?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Yes, it's very helpful. --Christine (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More from Ruhrfisch
 * I'm going to go ahead and address R's comments, even though this peer review has closed. Please let me know if I'm overstepping by doing so. --Christine (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a pet peeve, but et al. is Latin (so it should be italicized) and an abbreviation (so it needs a period).
 * Got it. I understand pet peeves.  Mine is the use of its.  And how the word "diamond" is often produced incorrectly in American Sign Language, but that's another article. --Christine (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article now has six fair use images. Two of them are just of living people (Joan Ganz Cooney and Jon Stone) and thus do not seem to meet WP:NFCC in any way - images of living people are typically not allowed as WP:FAIR USE since they could theoretically be obtained as free images. Even if they are allowable in this article, they are not in the articles on the two people in question. An actor has to have a free image, the character that actor portrays can have a fair use image.
 * Stone is unfortunately deceased, so there's only one image of a living person in this article. (I swear, I sighed through the entire last section of Davis' book; there seemed a period, in the early 90s, when a large group of the principle people involved with the creation of Sesame Street died.  Very sad.) --Christine (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant part of NFCC here is No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
 * The broader question to ask with each Fair use image is "how does this image increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text alone or a free image does not?" What does seeing what Jon Stone or Joan Ganz Cooney look like do to enhance our understanding of the History of Sesame Street? The Cooney image is more historic, but both seem to be decorative more than adding to our understanding.
 * I dunno. Personally, when I read about someone, I want to know what he/she looked like.  In article about books, for example, I always want to see an image of the author, if possible, and right away.  For this article, the "historical" image of Cooney, I think, is important.  Stone, out of any of the early production staff, is probably the most important figure.  Plus, for me, as a reader, I want to know what he looked like.  So I do know--I disagree with this; I think that neither image is "decorative" and they do add to the reader's understanding. --Christine (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thing to think about is Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding The image of Oscar with the actors is great as the idea to show both human actors and muppets is discussed in the text. The pitch reel Ganz Cooney is appearing in is not mentioned in the article except for the caption.
 * Let me work on this a bit. After some additional research, I've realized that there needs to be more information about the media blitz and PR campaign the CTW did in the months prior to The Show's premiere.  The pitch reel was part of it, so it's my intention to add that content before taking this to FAC. --Christine (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think an image of Elmo is great - my guess is that one that shows as much of what is unique about the Elmo's World segment as possible is the best for fair use purposes.
 * Now that you say that, I remember a more appropriate image of Elmo in EW, one of him standing within his crayon house. I'll work on this in the coming days as well. --Christine (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Six fair use images seems to be possibly running up against NFCC 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
 * I am not an image expert, but from what I have seen at FAC, I think these are valid concerns. I wonder if you can find freer images - for example this image from Flickr showing Murray had a little lamb being filmed. What I am not sure about is how the copyrighted nature of the Muppets / characters plays a role here. The White House image is free (PD-US Gov) but is Big Bird still copyrighted? This I am not sure about. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the review. I always get in trouble with images, so I'm grateful for any and all assistance.  The challenge with this kind of article, as stated previously, is deciding what should be included and what shouldn't.  Everyone has easy access to what the characters look like, though an abundance of both images and video, so the trick with images is to find free images that depict what isn't seen as often--that's why I thought the Stone and Cooney images work.  I can't see how the Murray image you mention fits within the content of this article.  (It definitely belongs in the sister article; it's not there currently, but I suspect after some more major edits, it will be because it portrays the filming of The Show.  If we can't use BB with Pat Nixon because of copyright issues, why would we be able to use Murray, who's just as copyrighted?  I think this warrants more discussion.
 * Again, thanks to everyone who participated in this pr. It may be a good idea to discuss some of the still-unresolved issues on the article's talk page.  (I still need to address User:Scartol's pr, which he put over there.)  I apologize for how slow I've been in addressing the issues brought up here. --Christine (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Last from Ruhrfisch
 * I noticed that the images need alt text and added one example - see WP:ALT
 * Dab finder turns up five disambiguation wikilinks
 * Back to images. Since the CTW/SW presumably owns the copyright to all the images used here under a fair use rationale, have you thought about writing them and asking for permission to use them under a free license? I have had some success with this in terms of pictures from state agencies and images from Flickr. I am not sure how they would feel about releasing images of Muppets or their logo under a non-commercial license, but they might be willing to release the Cooney and Stone images. If I were you, I would mention your work on other FAs like the Wiggles - I think it helps that they can look at an article and see that you do great work.
 * I am not an image reviewer, so if I were you I would not remove any images based on this PR. I would think about what you might do if the image reviewer in FAC asked to remove them. My concerns are based on my own experiences at FAC, which has become more stringent about images lately.
 * I think the title card (lead/first image) is fine as it is standard for a work on a TV show to have a title card as the lead image.
 * Cooney is mentioned 29 times in the article and is clearly important in the history of the show. I am still not convinced that my understanding of the history of SS is enhanced bu knowing what she looked like in 1969. In any case, the fair use image of her cannot be used in the article Joan Ganz Cooney without a separate fair use rationale (and even then I have my doubts).
 * The image of Gordon, Susan, and Oscar is fine as it illustrates multiple topics addressed in the article
 * Assuming Big Bird is copyrighted by the CTW/SW, the image of Big Bird and Pat Nixon may not be free (the photographer does not own the copyright to Big Bird). I still think this would be OK as Fair Use if needed, as it shows the early popularity and imapct of the show - the purple one who must not be named was not invited to the White Hosue in his first year on air...
 * Stone is mentioned 20 times, so he is also important. Since he is dead, a free image of him cannot be obtained by normal means, so I think it can be used in the article on him with a fair use rationale. As with Cooney, I am not sure what seeing him adds to my understanding of the article, but your mileage may vary...
 * The Mr Hooper sketch seems fine since it is discussed at some length in the article
 * An Elmo image also seems fine given the amount of coverage of Elmo's World - as has been noted before, there may be a more iconic image - the crayon house seems good as it shows the way Elmo uses green screen and CGI, something new.
 * The last point is just that there is a limit to the number of fair use media any one article can have - it is not a hard and fast number though. Since this is a show that has been on air over 40 years, I think 5 or 6 fair use images is probably OK, but it may be seen differently by the image reviewer in FAC. As Awadewit noted, it might be easier to justify fair use images that aired as part of the show (Bert and Ernie? Snuffie? some of the animation?) as opposed to talking heads of people behind the scenes.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * I think the weakest part of the article is the lead. It does not seem to be a good summary of the article. For example, it is missing information on the development and conception of the show, the decision to mix humans and Muppets, the types of changes made in the 1980s, the ratings drop and funding changes in the 1990s, details on the introduction of Elmo, and the impact of the recent recession.
 * As stated above, my leads are always the weakest part of "my" articles. What's interesting about this is that earlier today, I read this marvelous interview on Tough Pigs with Louise Gikow, author of the epic coffee table book, 40 Years of Life on the Street (which I highly recommend).  She said that the biggest challenge in writing that book is deciding what to include and what not to include.  We've kind of had the same experience here, on a much smaller scale.  What do you include in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, and what don't you include?  To you, the intro of Elmo is important enough, but not Snuffy's reveal.  I find that depending on your age, and which era of Sesame Street you watched, either as a child or with your own children, is the most important era.  For me, it was the very beginning years and the 2000s, and I've tried really hard to avoid WP:WEIGHT.  The problem with an article about a subject we're all familiar with is that everyone believes they're an expert, and has emotional connections with its content.  That being said, though, I've rewritten some of the lead as per your suggestion.  Now I fear that it's too long.  What do you think? --Christine (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with your sentiments. I actually specifically didn't include the Snuffy reveal in my list because that is what I remember most from my childhood years and I thought I would be weighting my list! I tried to create the list from an honest assessment of the article. I think the lead read much better now than it did before, though, and I don't think it is too long at all. Sizable articles merit sizable leads. Remember, many readers read only the lead, so it is worth spending a lot of time on. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence needs to indicate that Sesame Street is a children's television show.
 * I assume you mean the sentence that begins, This article reflects the history of... If so, I've made this change. --Christine (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I should have been clearer. I meant the first sentence of the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Responses included adulatory reviews, some controversy, and high ratings. - I would suggest expanding this sentence to include a bit more detail about the controversy - what was it about?
 * I've decided to not follow this discussion as per my response above. I'll address the article's discussion about the controversy below, but I fear that the lead is long enough as it is.  I believe that the current version adequately summarizes the content. --Christine (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The show's inception started in 1966 with initial idea by television producer Joan Ganz Cooney to create a children's television show. The idea arose during discussions with - Wordy


 * The creativity and effectiveness of the show in reaching millions of children solidified in the 1970s. - Doesn't quite make sense


 * By the middle of the decade, Sesame Street was in "full flower", and by the end of the decade it was "an American institution" - Sentence doesn't actually convey much substance
 * The last three issues have been addressed in the lead's rewrite. I believe that it's much clearer now. --Christine (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Up until the late 1960s, television was widely criticized for being little more than cartoons that depicted violence and reflected commercial values. - All of television or just children's television?
 * Good point. Children's TV, and it's been fixed. It's late, and I'm gonna turn in, so I'll address the rest of these issues tomorrow. --Christine (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Palmer and his team utilized concepts in the field of formative research, or "research conducted to inform the process of production". - This is a bit vague.
 * Clarified to: Palmer and his team's approach to researching the show's effectiveness was innovative; it was the first time that formative research was conducted in this way.[48] I think it's a better version now.  One my goals for the parent article is to expand its section on research, and perhaps even create a break-out article. --Christine (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not quite sure what "formative research" means. Perhaps another sentence explaining the reserach would clarify it? Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you say any more about This Way to sesame Street? Right now, that paragraph doesn't seem all that necessary.
 * Up to this point, that paragraph was short because very little has been written about it. Exhaustive google searches elicited very little additional information; even Davis and the Unpaved book briefly mention it.  I considered doing what you suggest, and deleting the information, but I instinctively knew that it was important.  Two new sources, Sesame Street and the Reform of Children's Television and Lesser's classic book about The Show, Lessons From Sesame Street back up my instincts.  This Way to Sesame Street was a small part of the advertising blitz the CTW put out about The Show in the months prior to its premiere.  I'm in the middle of reading the Lesser book, and when I finish, I intend to add that information.  So for now, I vote to retain the current information.  (BTW, the best part about the Lesser book is his inclusion of Maurice Sendak's cartoons, doodled during the curriculum meetings.  They are hilarious and typically incendiary.) --Christine (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * New York Times Magazine later reported that Sesame Street endured criticism of its fast pacing, which was said to cause epilepsy in its preschool audience - I'm curious is there is any truth to this accusation or if it was just a smear campaign.
 * Are you saying that there may be truth to the accusation that The Show causes epilepsy. If so, pl-ease!  I think that the article in the NYT Magazine brought that up as an example of one of the more ridiculous criticism, something that the CTW didn't even respond to.  One of the reasons I cite the source is that it was their report.  One of the things that need to be expanded in the parent article, and thus by extension this article, is a discussion about the criticism and controversy The Show caused, especially in its first season.  That info is also in the two above-mentioned sources; Lesser's book was essentially written to address the criticism.  Some of that info will probably eventually find itself over here. --Christine (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was unclear. I think the article doesn't do enough to dispel the myth (I assumed it was a myth but I wanted to check). For example, it doesn't say "endured false criticism" or something along those lines. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you think about a fair-use clip of part of the "Rubber-Ducky" song?


 * What do you think about a fair-use clip of part of the Mr. Hoooper death episode instead of the still image? It is the most famous episode by far.


 * I'll address the last two issues together. I think that these questions get at what I was talking above about weight.  Why use a clip of "Rubber Ducky"?  Why not use "Bein' Green" or "Sing", since they're also mentioned.  And why the Mr. Hooper episode, even though I personally agree about its importance?  (BTW, the clip is included in the "External links" section.)  Why not Snuffy's reveal, or Maria and Luis' wedding?  This is exactly why I decided against using fair-use clips.  I figure that if someone wants to view a SS clip about anything that's mentioned in the article, they can; they're easy enough to find, ya know.  Just this week, I watched some clips of Alaina Reed (Olivia), who passed away two weeks ago.  It made me realize that she's not mentioned in this article, and I feel a little guilty about that.  There are so many of the cast and crew that can be mentioned, but if they're not germane to The Show's history, they shouldn't be.  Reed's mentioned in the other SS articles where appropriate, though.  OTOH, I may go ahead and add her name anyway.  I'll think on it a couple of days first.
 * Fair enough - I just like to take advantage of the multimedia options we have, if possible. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful! Sorry it took me so long to review the article. :( Awadewit (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They've been tremendously helpful, thanks so much. It certainly has taken me long enough to address them. --Christine (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - there are no deadlines on Wikipedia - isn't that wonderful? Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)