Talk:History of Sesame Street/Archive 2

First round:

• What existed for children on TV before 1969? Howdy Doody? The Flintstones? What do the sources say about these shows and others? Can you give me an example of how they left TV a wasteland?

The Flintstones was way after the period in question, silly. ;) I think what you're asking me to do is expand this paragraph, so I did. I think there needed to be more background about the times, and the state of children's programming. (I think that my discussion about the state of young childhood education is adequate, so I think I needed to do the same for this topic.) I cited some specific examples and added info about the type of production. I also added a note directing the reader to Davis and the "G is For Growing" book, since although it's fascinating, I don't think is the place for a discussion about the early history of children's TV. (Personally, I think the history of early TV is cool, but that's another topic for another time.) --Christine (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What did Joan Ganz Cooney do before she came up with the idea?

It does state that she was a documentary producer, but I added more specific information, just 'cause you asked. --Christine (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is there to say about how Sesame Street poked fun at television, sort of a self-effacing irony? I'm assuming they plugged in to kids' previous knowledge of what was shown on TV by having daily shows sponsored by letters and numbers. Funny for adults, educational for kids.

I added a paragraph going into more detail about this, and how the producers use humor, cultural references, and celebrities to get parents to watch with their kids. I didn't initially include it because I thought it fit better over in the main article's discussion about The Show's structure. (Which is doesn't, at least not now--oops!--so I'll go over there and remedy that!) --Christine (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot of detail in the cast turnover in the 1970s section that I wonder is really relevant. Why was Roosevelt Franklin controversial?

I've thought about this some, Moni, and I think it is relevant. One of the points in

Street Gang is that it was the personalities involved (and all of them) that have made The Show what it is. And you know that if I didn't mention all those folks, people would complain. ("Not fair! You mentioned Will Lee, but not Roscoe Orman--or whomever your favorite character is!") RF was controversial because many worried that he was "too black", and that he used black English. I think that this explanation better belongs in his article, though, although I can include it here, if you insist. Should I put the word in quotes, a la "controversial"? --Christine (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I left some hidden comments in my review so far. Primarily when quotes are used, they need to be quantified to say who said them, preferably with a title. I'm going to give the article another run later today or tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I addressed all the above and your hidden comments. If I've missed anything, please let me know. --Christine (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First round part 2

• Elmo's introduction needs a bit more fanfare here. At least a sentence or two that indicates how important the character became to the show.

That's my deep-seated resentment for Elmo rearing its ugly head, I'm sure. (I just can't help it; my kids love him more than me, and I guess I'm jealous. Plus, for me, a little of Elmo goes a long way, as I always say, and they've given him an entire 15-minute long segment! They never did that for Kermit--oh, wait, I forget; they gave him an entire show, didn't they? My only consolation is that my son loves Blue more than Elmo. But excuse the digression.) This introduces a problem. Elmo was created in 1979 and was played by several puppeteers, including Richard Hunt, but he didn't hit the big time until Clash took him over in 1983, and the "Tickle-Me Elmo" phenomenon didn't happen until 96. With the way this this article is structured, how do you tackle it? I agree that I need to expand the discussion about Elmo, but where the heck do I put it? (See what I mean? That Elmo's just a trouble-maker.) My first inclination is to put it in the 1990s-2000s section, since Elmo's influence didn't really take root until then. I wonder if it should be in the discussion about "Elmo's World". I'll go ahead and do that, and you tell me what you think, 'kay? --Christine (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 1970s section there's an event for 1980. In the 1980s section there's an event for 1996.

I think that I've addressed the 1996 event. I think, though, that the 1980 event should remain where it is. It's in the middle of a discussion about how The Show gained financial independence. It might have happened in the decade of the 80s, but it was part of a movement that occurred in the 70s. I vote to keep it as is. --Christine (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's some room here to discuss the charm of some of the characters. One of my favorites, Count von Count, for example, just counts things at random to be followed by a flurry of bats and lightning and thunder while he cackles evilly. Mr. Snuffalaupagus (sp? who knows?), it should be explained, is hidden from the human cast (or is it everyone but Big Bird?), and I never did understand what was so attractive about Bert and Ernie. Even as a kid I thought their house was ruled by boredom. Anyways, you can explain some of these characters. What is it about Elmo that makes my 2-year-old nephew so enamored of this pipping red fluffy monster that talks like another 2-year-old?

This is utterly fascinating, and tells me a lot about you as a person (I've always thought that you could do a psychological personality test based upon your favorite Muppets, but that's another issue), but I'm not sure it fits here. I think a discussion about "the charm of the characters" fits better in the parent article, or in the character's individual articles. There is some mention about the characters, when it supports the arguments in the article, like how Big Bird and Oscar were created after the Street Scenes failed in the initial tests, and how Prairie Dawn was created because they thought they needed more female characters. There is an explanation about Snuffy, and why they revealed him in the 80s. (BTW, my favorite Muppet is Kermit, the sane calm one in the midst of craziness, and I agreed with him about how not easy it is bein' green.) --Christine (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give some examples of celebrities who appeared on the show? There's a frankly odd video on YouTube of James Earl Jones counting to ten. I also recall the Pointer Sisters singing the ABC song and Madelaine Kahn singing several songs. What about some of the animation? Some of the tracks are just downright funkadelic like the pinball counting [1] and this one animation thing about danger that scared the crap out of me as a kid.

There are all kinds of SS videos on YouTube; there will be some mention of that eventually in the parent article. Again, all this is interesting, but not germane. It's my personal and strongly-held belief that this article (or any SS-related article, for that matter) should not be a place for all of our favorite SS moments. (It'd be an awfully long article, for one thing.) And BTW, Jones was reciting the alphabet, not counting to ten. I was going to say that the animation also belongs elsewhere, but I'm rethinking that. Perhaps there needs to be a line or two about how Henson produced many of the animated and shorts. Let me think about some more, though. I'll better address it, probably tomorrow, when I address your final concerns and your hidden comments. --Christine (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I went over to YouTube to view the JEJ SS video, and I found that he did indeed count to 10. He did both! My apologies. --Christine (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be shy about adding topic sentences to introduce the next issue. To precede the sentence For the 1988 and 1989 seasons, the show's producers decided to address the topics of love, marriage, and childbirth by creating a storyline in which the characters Luis and Maria fall in love, marry, and have a child, Gabi. why not add something like Cast members' personal lives also began to mirror the issues covered in Sesame Street episodes.

I took your suggestion and tweaked it a bit, since the subject of that topic is really about the writers using the cast member's RL experiences: Sesame Street's producers and writers began to use their cast member's personal lives and real-life experiences to cover issues they wanted to address on the show. For the 1988 and 1989 seasons, the topics of love, marriage, and childbirth were addressed when they created a storyline in which the characters Luis and Maria fall in love, marry, and have a child, Gabi. --Christine (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. I'm going to ask you to copy edit the last section in the article by using the cues I've given you in the previous parts. Use quotes when experts are giving an opinion. If something can be expressed without a quote, use prose unless it's a superlative concept you're using. When quotes are used, state who said what, giving their title.

Ok, I believe that I have done as you asked. Then I glanced over the article again, making sure I had improved every quote as you suggest, in case we both missed something. --Christine (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We also need to work on the non-free images in the article. Their rationales are very weak and need to be shored up. Let's work on prose first and then get to the nonfree images. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your help with this. I have no qualms admitting that getting images acceptable is way beyond me. It find the policies surrounding images convoluted and confusing, and have never been able to understand them. This is why I allow others who are more intelligent in this area to figure it out, even if it's them telling me, "Go do that!" I'm very obedient in that way. --Christine (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (butting in) Christine if you could buff up the Roosevelt Franklin article or this one on controversy that would be good - he as pretty high profile early on, so discussing him in some way addresses some recentism with focus on Elmo. Maybe a line more here and more over there in the daughter article.

I'll address this point before I stop for the night. I agree that there should be more about RF over here, especially as he relates to Matt Robinson. (He was a producer and writer, and he agreed to play Gordon on the condition that he create a character like RF.) I will take care of that very soon. You should know that it's been my intention all along to discuss RF and the controversy he created over at the parent article, in the "Critical reception" section. (It should go in both Robinson and RF's articles as well.) I just haven't been able to get to it yet! My question, though, is what does it have to do with this article?

Please excuse my snarkiness here, folks. I checked my sources, and my above statement about Matt R. is incorrect. I solved this issue, though, by putting the word "controversial" in quotes as I suggested above and by adding a note referring the reader to Davis' discussion. Hopefully, this satisfies your reservation about it. I've thought about this a couple of days, and I don't think a "Controversy" section belongs in this article. It either deserves its own article, (a la Controversies of Sesame Street), or in a section in the parent article. I think that this article already talks about some of the controversies that have arisen, as it impacts the show's history, but I don't think it belongs as a separate focus. That being said, it's my intention to finally get to a controversy section in the parent article in the next several days. Although with me, ya never know.. :) --Christine (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I added/expanded Sesame Street#Critical reception to include info about FR. I think that it satisfies your concerns. (I will continue and add more criticism to that article.) I used the phrase "negative cultural stereotype" instead of "borderline racist", as Stephen Colbert does (way funny--go look!), to describe him. ;) --Christine (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also remembered the James Earl Jones segment - and was wracking my brain for others....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get thee over to YouTube; you'd be surprised at the sheer number of Muppet-related videos there are over there. (My personal favorites are the two "Muppet melody" clips during Henson's funeral. Makes me cry like a baby and uplifts my spirit at the same time, every time I watch it. Beautiful, beautiful stuff.) --Christine (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash course in nonfree images

All nonfree images have to have a rock solid reason for being included because basically you are violating a copyright by including them. Those who are well-read in the finer points of nonfree images will likely try to split hairs here, but this is a crash course and how I learned it.

So it's other people's work. Occasionally there is good reason to include someone else's copyrighted material because you are illustrating a concept and a source has made an explicit reference to an image. That makes it a fair use image for a very specific purpose. Keep in mind that the source has to mention something explicit in the image. For your Oscar the Grouch image, the source would have to address something about Oscar that is apparent in that image. For the opening image at the top of the article, a source would have to write about that opening title card, making a point about it. If there are sources that mention the first opening title card, or the title card for the first 3 seasons, and there are no sources that mention recent season title cards, you'll have to switch the image. Now your job is to find images that correspond to what sources have written. Then, when you have loaded it, the fair use rationales need to reflect very explicitly why it is ok to use someone else's copyrighted material. Amend the points to say Author John Q. Academic writes in his book Sesame Street Is The Best Show Ever on page 24 that this image reflects a significant turning point in the development of the show. Give details so no one could ever question why this image is in the article. Check out the rationales for the images in Mulholland Drive (film). Let me know if you need clarification. --Moni3 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit

• There are four according to whom? tags still in the article.

Sorry it's taken me so bloody long to get to this. It's been a busy couple of weeks (I'm in the middle of transitioning to a new job), and I think it was a good idea for me to take a semi-break from intense editing. I realize that there's no way this article will make it to FAC by November, but it was probably too ambitious a goal anyway. I've requested that this article is featured in Nov. 10's "On this day" section instead of the main article, so there'll be at least some mention of the anniversary. In addition, there are at least two books coming out the week of the anniversary, so it's probably better to wait until the literature about The Show's complete. At any rate, I have now gone through the tags and removed them after addressing this oversight. Thanks for the catch! --Christine (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving on to some FAC criteria, I think you tend to use quotes when prose will do fine. Examples:

• According to children's media experts Edward Palmer and Shalom M. Fisch, children's television programs of the 1950s and 1960s duplicated "prior media forms".
• Cooney was producing talk shows and documentaries at educational television station WNDT, and in 1966, had won an Emmy for a documentary about "the plight of the poor".
• Research had also shown that children from low-income, minority backgrounds tested "substantially lower"[20] than middle-class children in school-related skills, and that they continued to have educational deficits throughout school.
• This production team was led by Connell, who had experience with "volume production" during his eleven years working on Captain Kangaroo
• Stone, who was familiar with Henson's work, felt that if they could not bring him on board, they should "make do without puppets".
• As a result, the CTW decided to become "totally self-sufficient" and instead began to depend upon licensing arrangements, publishing, and international sales.

• I went through the entire article, and where I thought it appropriate, I changed the quotes to narrative. I think that it's much better now. As I stated earlier in this process, I think I went to the other extreme compared to my last FAC. For the MemChu article, I suffered from too much close paraphrasing. This time, I used too many quotes. Thanks for smacking me back into the middle. --Christine (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the middle of the 1970s section when my ADD kicked in because it's the end of the day and I'm fried. I'm going to read through the rest of the article again. So far, I like it and I find it well-written, very close to being ready to be renominated for GA. I still have some questions about why some things weren't changed, but you're the captain of this ship so to speak and if you can persuade me why my suggestions were off, then ok. I'd also like to read through SilkTork's original comments to see if they still apply. We're going to have to work on photos. The article simply won't pass GA with fair use rationales the way they are. I'll come back in a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, so if you could remind me of what I didn't change, that would be great. I'll go through all the comments made thus far and make sure I've hit all concerns. And then I'll take a look at your image review. It'll take a day or two, though. Thanks for the review, and for your patience. --Christine (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to learn about fair use is to look at

• File:AEOrangeOscar.jpg - To use a fair use image, you have to provide a compelling reason that the visual image is necessary. For example, why do we need to see this photograph of Oscar the Grouch? It would seem that, in text, you could say "Oscar was originally orange" and get across the major change - you don't really need the image. The caption says: "Portrayer Carroll Spinney based Oscar's character on a New York City taxi driver." This is not relayed in the image, however - this is part of Oscar's voice and actions. I would suggest using a video here instead of a still picture. The video would explain the caption much better and would probably be easier to justify.

  As much as I like the orange Oscar, I think that the solution here is to swap the image with another one, which I have done. At first, I was thinking that to satisfy this issue, we needed to change the caption, but I couldn't come up with a rationale as to why it fit. The text's point, the change in the first season to have humans and Muppets interacting, is better demonstrated, I think, with an image of the two groups together. So I swapped orange Oscar with a more recent one of him with Gordon and Susan. I think it does the trick, don't you? Re: videos in this (or any other SS article): I hesitate using videos here. While it's true that there are all kinds of SS/Muppet videos out there (like on YouTube; as a mental health care provider, if you ever want to lift your spirits, I prescribe watching them), I doubt that we're ever gonna get a release. The SW is notoriously protective of their characters, and I doubt they're gonna release anything to WP. Personally, I think that the use of videos should be done sporadically, and with how easy it is to access SS videos, I'm not sure they fit here. Now that I read back what I've written, though, I'm not sure my reasoning is very sound. At any rate, I think that swapping the images addresses this issue. --Christine (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a quick note - I'll look back at these later. I was thinking of a fair use video, as SW obviously will not release the video under a free license (see linked example from Star Trek below).

  talk) 18:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Now remember that I know next to nothing about this stuff when I ask this question: how does one go about finding fair use videos? I'm thinking that the solution to our image dilemma regarding SS articles is screenshots. That, I know how to do. Also, much of the images on the Muppet Wiki are screenshots, so they'd be easy to access. --Christine (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  All videos are fair game for fair use.

  talk) 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  On the above image, I'm not sure this image is justified. The two people are not mentioned in the article, so it is not clear why we need a photo of them. Remember that we need a reason why readers must see this particular image.

  talk) 03:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Let me tell you why I respectfully disagree. Yes, it's true that Hal Miller and Loretta Long aren't mentioned in the article, but there is a discussion about why humans and Muppets freely interact on The Show. I think that the image and its caption depicts that interaction. I mean, you didn't have an issue with the image of Big Bird and Pat Nixon, and she's not mentioned, either. That image is appropriate because it depicts The Show's influence. (It's also ironic because Pres. Nixon hated PBS and wanted to kill The Bird, but that's periphery.) For that reason, I would like to keep both images. --Christine (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The image of Big Bird and Pat Nixon is in the public domain - we don't need a special reason to use it. Fair use images, on the other hand (because they are under copyright), like the one of Hal Miller and Loretta Long, need to have a very specific rationale for using them. Showing the interaction between human and Muppet can be part of the reason, but I don't think it is enough. Many images could show that - the fair use rationale needs to demonstrate why this particular image is necessary to the article. That is why the fair use rationale must discuss Miller and Long.

  talk) 17:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• [Redent] I added the following to the description page of this image, which I hope is okay: Gordon and Susan, along with Oscar, were on the show when it premiered in 1969, and were considered when the producers made the decision to eschew the advice of many experts and have human and Muppet characters interact with each other. --Christine (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is much better. I would consider this a strong enough fair use rationale.
  talk) 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• File:Pat Nixon Big Bird.gif - This needs a link to the source and an author. NARA is the National Archives, I think - you'll have to spend some time looking for the image there.

  Wasn't able to find it, after a kinda lengthy search. I've left a note on the downloader's talk page to ask for more information about it. --Christine (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Got a response from User:Happyme22! He downloaded a better version of the image and provided the necessary information on the image's description page. Then I replaced the image on the article. Yippee! --Christine (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This one is now fine.

  talk) 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• WP:NFCC
  #3 explains, we need to keep to "minimal usage" - no repetition, in other words.

  Addressed this, I think, in the same way as above. Bert and Ernie as they're depicted in the TV special, which depicts their relationship as discussed in the TV special. I also added the FUR to the image page. --Christine (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The new image is better and the rationale stronger. However, it is still weak. Do you have any information on the appearance of B&E? About their shape or color, for example?

  talk) 03:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Fixed, I think, by including this parenthetical, which also describes B&E's part in the special: (This was demonstrated in the special's O Henry-inspired storyline, in which the characters gave up their prized possessions, Ernie his rubber ducky and Bert his paper clip collection, to purchase each other Christmas gifts.) I also changed the caption.

  talk) 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Done. --Christine (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFCC
  #4 states that "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia." Moreover, the justification for including the image is much too weak - "The image is intended to illustrate content in the article in question." - Again, we need a reason to have this particular image. The article says that the episode describing Mr. Hooper's death was a landmark - a turning point. It sounds like a screenshot or a clip from that episode might be a better choice.

  I have a link to the YouTube video in "External Links", as well as a note directing readers to Davis' description of the episode. I think that you're right about the screenshot, though. I'm going to go through each image and see if there are better images available on the Wiki, try and get the FURs right, and see how that flies. --Christine (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of use in the new image - "Depicts a part of the episode discussed in the article" - is too weak. Remember, that

  talk) 03:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Fixed by adding this line: Carroll Spinney, who played Big Bird and who drew the caricatures used in the episode, reported that the cast and crew were moved to tears while filming the episode.

  I'm just convinced that this is a sufficient reason to include this image as it is unclear from the above statement that the caricatures play a crucial role in the episode. Also, we already have a free image of Big Bird, so including a fair use image does not seem justified.

  talk) 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm assuming you meant not convinced. After thinking about this, I think I solved this problem. I downloaded another image that cuts out The Bird (although his fingers are still there; hope that's okay), changed the caption, and added the word "prominently" to the above statement. If it's still not satisfactory to you, please give me a better solution, 'cause I don't think I can come up with one. --Christine (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To use this image, the purpose of use must be specific. Currently, it only says: "Depicts a part of the episode discussed in the article." - Try writing something about this being a landmark scene in a landmark episode and give a source for the landmark episode. That will make it much stronger.

  talk) 05:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

[Redent]: Done. --Christine (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I forgot to re-emphasize that the purpose of use must explain why we need to see the image. Perhaps there is some source that talks about how Big Bird deals with his grief by drawing this picture? You could write that this image encapsulates the theme of the episode, etc.
  talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• File:Elmo.PNG - The Elmo article has no FUR for History of Sesame Street.

• talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fixed.

• There is no specific source - what episode of the TV show is this from? How did you get access to the clip?
  talk) 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Better fix. --Christine (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the FURs a bit, but it is the "significance" justification (

I decided to work on the images first. I hope that what I've done is satisfactory. If not, please let me know and I'll do what I can. I made sure that the FURs were adequate, and swapped out some images that are probably more appropriate. If you have ideas for the screenshots, let me know that, too. Thanks for your tutelage, A. Next, I will go through all comments made since the GAC and make sure they've been addressed. --Christine (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above. Again, I would urge you to read

talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, A. I appreciate the time you and Moni have spent tutoring me about images. I'm the kind of learner that requires specific examples. I've read everything you guys have recommended, but it does me very little good unless I practice it. You can't just show me how to do something; I need to do it myself, sometimes over and over again. I realize that it can be somewhat frustrating for my teachers, so I appreciate your patience. The benefit to all this is that I'll probably be better about images in my next FAC. --Christine (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one left!

talk) 05:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

See above. --Christine (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must pass for GA:

• You have a cite tag in the notes. A note is duplicated. Note 5 has no cite information, just an external link. Cite 13 about Calloway's mental illness needs a cite.

  I'm going to fix any and/or all of the cite problems by following the new cite.php extension. [2]

  Issue addressed; haven't completed converting the citation format yet. If this is an issue for GA, I'll concentrate on it in the next few days. --Christine (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommendation right now for pass GA: remove all non-free images temporarily by placing <!-- hidden tags --> around them. If you want to get this through FAC, we'll work on the images. GA first.

  I think that I've fixed the images as per Awadewit's suggestions.

• I'm on the fence about the spread to international countries. It really is important. The HIV+ muppet from South Africa made international news. I think at least a paragraph should be added about viewership of Sesame Street franchises in other countries.

  I'm currently in the middle of writing something in the parent article about the controversy surrounding the SA Muppet, so I'll add a line about it here, as well as expanding the short mention of the international versions here. I'm also doing the research to improve the corresponding section over there. For example, PBS made a documentary about the international co-productions called "The World According to SS," which is posted on YouTube. I'll work on that in the coming days, and see how I can improve the discussion over here.

  This has taken a little longer than I anticipated. First, I discovered that only the first part of the documentary had been downloaded on YouTube, so I ordered the DVD, which just arrived late last week. I think the wait was worth it, since the documentary is very valuable. Then I decided, after viewing and doing some more research, that this warrants its own article expansion, which I've started working on. (I renamed/moved this article to

  International co-productions of Sesame Street.) For this article, I took some of that research and slightly expanded the discussion of the co-productions, which I think is adequate for here. The most fun part: I got the newest SS literature for my birthday, Sesame Street: A celebration, a couple of days after it was published, just this weekend! It's such a beautiful book, and it has the most recent globalization count: 140 countries. How cool is that? The funny part: I was trying to read it, and my son came over and we started fighting over it, so I had to put it up and away. My husband expressed his sympathy that I couldn't enjoy my birthday gift, and I said, "That's all right--that's what I get for having the same interests as my severely developmentally disabled toddler-kid". ;) At any rate, I think that all the issues have now been addressed. --Christine (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

For sure to do before nominating for FAC: Expand some of the more popular characters and discuss some of the stars who have been on the show in its history. I watched a video of Ray Charles singing the ABC song yesterday. It was fascinating. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the way I can satisfy this issue is to add some content about how The Show uses celebrities to attract parents and older viewers. I need to think about the characters issue, and how I can satisfy this recommendation and my continued assertion that this kind of discussion doesn't belong here. Perhaps when I get further in the "Characters" section over on the parent article I can figure it out. You should also check out Charles' version of "Bein' Green" during the 10th anniversary special; it's so beautiful. And Stevie Wonder's performance of "Superstition" on SS is magical. I couldn't believe I was watching a SS clip; it felt more like SNL, but there was the brownstone set with the kids rockin' out with him. --Christine (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that kid in the UFO movie who says "they're baaaaaaaack!" The issue is that the New York Times Magazine picked up on (and reported) critiques of the presence of strong single women in Sesame Street, while NOW said that the women weren't represented strongly enough.

In an attempt to show this contrast (which I think is an important sign of the times), I moved the NYTM critique down to where the NOW information is (with the citation). Let me know how it looks and reads; I thin it's a smidge awkward, and may tweak it again before I let it be. Input? Jhfortier (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording shows the contrast you want, but I agree that the wording's a little awkward. I especially take issue with this phrase: members of NOW took issue with the character Susan (har har), but I'm not sure how to fix it. I'll think about it some and maybe I'll come up with something a little later.

I also think that the movie you're talking about is Poltergeist. Sorry, no UFOs, but I understand the sentiment. I feel similarly with Blue's Clues and Steve Burns, whenever I have to revert the losers who insist that Steve left the show because he died of an overdose. For some reason, it seems to happen at certain times of the year, like at the beginning of the school year. Why do you suppose that is? ;) --Christine (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I saw a recent-ish picture of Steve from Blue's Clues and he's adorable! Except where on the show he was adorable in an "awww" way, now he's adorable in a "most eligible bachelor" way. But I digress...

I hate how Wikipedia somehow brings out the "awkward wording" in me. I know what I want to say, but sometimes the words just don't flow. I'll take a look at it tomorrow, I think, and maybe something will appear. Anyway, I'll work on the peer review a bit more tonight, please don't hesitate to give me a smack with the

wiki-trout if I do anything silly (I seem to be really adept at ruining citations!). Jhfortier (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that one of the weaknesses of the current version of this article is its dependence on quotes. I recognize that much of the reason for that is the main editor's writing weaknesses. (As Murray Cook would say, "That's me!") I struggle with paraphrasing sources into well-crafted, original statements. So this article could benefit from some focus and improvement in this area. I'm certain that as we get further in the improvement process, this will be dealt with.

Lastly, I'm going to try (over the Christmas break) to get some more online sources. I've found a stack of online published articles (mostly from educational or psychology journals) that might be really helpful; for the most part, they were authored by people who went on to write the books already cited here, so we could help shift some of the burden away from offline sources onto material that can be easily verified by the GA (or someday, dare I say it, FA!) reviewers. Obviously the books are an invaluable resource, but if we can move some of the easily-verified, commonly-known details to articles online I think it could prove useful in reassuring reviewers of the veracity of the information. I might need some help, because I am terrible at working with wiki's citations, but I think having even a few more of the sources easily verifiable online will only help get this through GA. Jhfortier (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the assistance. I'm of a different opinion about on-line sources, though. I don't see why a high-quality article can't depend upon offline sources. My own wiki-heroes and models, folks like

Gerald Lesser, probably one of the most first sources out there about the history and goals of The Show. It's my intention to glean it for as many Street articles as possible. --Christine (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I hope I didn't come off as overly critical, because I did really enjoy this article. Throughout the review, I was keeping an eye on the sticking points from the previous GA review, and one of the reviewers noted that use of offline resources made verifiability more difficult. In re-reading it more care, the reviewer was more than willing to order the book and do the check, so I've struck my comments about that above. The most up-to-date references should certainly be used, and if the reviewers don't mind offline resources then the article should do well.

Re: the paraphrasing, I might take a stab at it over the course of the holidays, but I'll try to do it one or two sentences at a time so that if any issues crop up (broken citations, or paraphrasing that is too close to the book's prose) they can be easily reverted. Jhfortier (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated comments from Scartol

Oops! I guess I took too long to be part of the official Peer Review. (Sorry about that.)

As always, Christine: Nice work! The research here is exhaustive, and the prose is enjoyable to read. Despite my nipicking below, this article is very well written.

Thanks, Scar--high praise, coming from you. No worries about the timing; I've been slow about it, too. I appreciate the nitpicking, better now than later, at FAC. Although things will most likely get nick-picky there, too, but so what else is new? ;) --Christine (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The show's success continued into the 1980s, an era of deregulation. In 1981, the federal government withdrew its funding, so CTW turned to other sources... This implies that deregulation had something to do with the show's success, or the withdrawal of funding. Neither is obvious, so the reader is confused.

If you knew anything about television in the 80s, you'd understand. If you didn't, I could see why you'd be confused, so I deleted the phrase an era of deregulation. It's so cool that this was the only issue you found in the lead! My difficulties with writing leads is legendary. (Well, maybe I exaggerate a bit.) I see that you copyedited it a bit, and it's much improved as a result. Thanks dude!

I thought that I'd be able to concentrate on this tonight, but I just can't. Good night! I'll come back for more tomorrow. --Christine (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-production (1966-1969)

• Many children's television programs were produced by local stations, and portrayed their creators' visions and agendas. I'd recommend moving the advisory note to the end of the sentence. The sentence itself is unclear; don't all shows "portray their creators' visions and agendas"? Is this related to being produced by a local station?

I went back to the original source and clarified. I think the current version is closer to what the authors intended to say, which was that most children's TV shows weren't based on much of anything other than what the creators felt like. --Christine (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An exception was Captain Kangaroo, which reflected the sensibilities of its creator and host, Bob Keeshan. I'd like to see a descriptive adjective before "sensibilities", which could differentiate for the reader why his show was an exception.

Again, a problem with paraphrasing. I think the revision does a better job at summarizing what Davis was trying to say. --Christine (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In spite of Cooney's lack of experience in the field of education, her study, titled "Television for Preschool Education", spelled out how television could be used as an aid in the education of inner-city preschool children. The first part doesn't feel logically connected to the second part. Would it be fair to make the first part a separate sentence by adding a simple claim like "was well received"? Also, it sounds like her report was only about inner-city kids, but the title indicates findings about all kids.

Maybe this rewrite would work? In spite of Cooney's lack of experience in the field of education, her study was well received. Titled "Television for Preschool Education", it spelled out how television could be used as an aid in the education of preschool children, especially those living in inner cities.

It works great, so great that I cut-and-pasted it. Can you do all my writing for me? ;) --Christine (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As author Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, research suggested that parents from low-income families did not tend to encourage or participate in their children's education... This makes me nervous. Perhaps: "... parents from low-income families tend to encourage and participate in their children's education less than parents of more moderate income..."? (I'm not a big Gladwell fan, but I'm trying to keep that from affecting me here. Does he cite where he gets this info from? Maybe we could cite that source?)

It should make you nervous; Malcolm never said that research has suggested any such thing. He just makes the assertion, so I deleted the phrase. It's obvious that Gladwell has read Gerald Lesser's seminal book on The Show, Children and Television, which discusses that same assertion, that parents from low-income families are less likely to participate with their children's education. It's my intention to glean the jewels from that marvelous book to add content to this article and to Sesame Street, but after I get back from my vacation. At first I was surprised about your feelings about Gladwell, but from what I know of you, it makes a great deal of sense to me, at least on an instinctual level. I have a feeling I'd agree with you, but his sections in The Tipping Point about both SS and Blue's Clues are worth the price of the book. And he's really responsible for my involvement in both articles, since what he wrote about the Distractor and the research that has gone into both shows has really inspired me. --Christine (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like at least some of the images don't have
  alt tags
  . You'll want to add these before going to FAC.

Yah, Ruhrfisch said the same thing. I've added the alt tags. --Christine (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you should explain quickly what it means to be in charge of "volume production".

Done, in this way: This production team was led by Connell, who had gained experience producing many episodes in a short period of time (called "volume production") during his eleven years working on Captain Kangaroo. --Christine (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Harvard University professor Gerald S. Lesser conducted five three-day curriculum planning seminars in Boston in the summer of 1968. Was this part of the show's preparations? If so, that should be made clear at the start of the sentence.

Isn't it already clear? I mean, the very next sentence explains the purpose of the meetings, which were to plan the show's curriculum. I'm afraid of being repetitious if I do what you ask. If you could re-write the sentence yourself, so I'd know what you want exactly, that would be helpful. --Christine (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get one or two other names that they disliked more? (Great bits of info, by the way. I can't stop thinking that "Preschool Educational Television Show" sounds like some utilitarian Soviet kids' show.)

Done, in a note. There was a promotional film made, and I'm sure you've heard of it, where a boardroom full of Muppets discussed the titles, and one of them was "The Itty Bitty Gritty Children's Television Show", but I could literally find nothing about it outside of Muppet Wiki. Since then, I discovered it both in Lesser's book and in A Celebration, and will add it as I can. I'm going on vacation next week, remember? --Christine (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MOS#Images
  used to indicate that an image shouldn't appear right under a third-level heading, but I don't see that indication anymore. Perhaps that guideline has been removed? (I liked it, because I agree that it breaks up the flow of the article.)

In this article, the image of Gordon and Susan appears right beneath the "July 1969 test episodes" third-level header. Usually this can be remedied (as I did with the image of Henson) by moving the image down. This will be impractical in this case, so I'm not sure what to suggest. (I'm not a fan of boxed pull-quotes, so my instinct is to remove the excerpt from Street Gang and move the image up. But it's just an idea.)

This image was originally not directly under the heading, for the reason you state above, but someone else moved it up and no one else has complained about it. I agree with you, of course, about this policy breaking up the flow of articles. What you did worked fine with the Henson image, but it won't in this case. And obviously I like the quotebox, but I've had to remove another one I liked in the course of a review, so I suspect that this one will be unfortunately removed as well. And since you don't seem adamant about it, would it be okay to keep it for now, until another country is heard from? If you tell me to, though, I'll cut it. --Christine (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere and first season (1969-1970)

• Any hope of getting a description of what appeared on the preview show?

Ok, I've thought about this some, and I think this is another aspect of the issue I've talked with others about. I just went to YouTube to try and find the preview show, and sure enough, I found several segments. You can also go to Muppet Wiki for a list of scenes as well. I think that this falls into the category of "If I really wanted to see it, I'd do so". Notice that very few specific episodes have been described, at least not in any great detail. The first episode isn't, and the Mr. Hooper's episode is described only when it was necessary to understand what they were trying to do (the Bird's caricatures, for example). So no, I don't think it's necessary to describe it. No reliable sources describe it, so we couldn't, anyway. --Christine (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They found that children who watched the show learned more than less frequent viewers. I assume this refers to their learning in school? (If so, best to say so.)

No, it doesn't, and since it was unclear, I changed the wording: They found that children who watched the show scored higher in the ETS' tests than less frequent viewers. --Christine (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sesame Street endured criticism of its fast pacing, which was said to cause epilepsy in its preschool audience. Any way we could get an in-sentence source for this claim? Who said the fast pace caused epilepsy?

Improved since you made this feedback, but no, the NYT Mag doesn't cite the source for the claim. It might be somewhere else, in my other newer sources, so I'll hunt it down when I add content from them. For now, let's leave it as is. --Christine (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1970s

• They decided, after its initial funding of the show's development and first season, to explore other ways to fund the show's future seasons. This is unclear. My instinct is to remove "its", but I'm still not certain what it means without that word.

The wording was pretty rough, so I cut some stuff and combined the first two sentences and came up with: After the the show's initial success, its producers began to think about its survival beyond its development and first season and decided to explore other funding sources. Please let me know what you think. --Christine (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to use the US$ style in the Doreen Carvajal reference, you should do it throughout the article.

Done, thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps indicate why Roosevelt Franklin was controversial?

You don't think the note referring the reader to Davis is enough? I ask because I'm not sure that this article is the best place to discuss the controversy. It also gets into some of the show's criticism, which as I've said previously, is an aspect of this article that needs expanding. One way to deal with it is to remove the "controversial" phrase. Do you think that's an adequate solution? --Christine (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Somebody Come and Play" and "Sing", which became a hit for The Carpenters in 1973,[20] were also written by Raposo. I assume they were written for the show?

Yes, that's right. I added the words for Sesame Street to the end of the sentence for clarification sake. --Christine (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I might prefer a link to The Gift of the Magi itself, rather than just O Henry.

Okay, done. --Christine (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1980s

• Research was also conducted by Sesame Street in order to target the areas in which children's knowledge was the weakest. What did they find?

Hello, back from my vacation now--had a marvelous time, thank you. I decided to go ahead and cut this line because I'm not that the original source goes into was area was the weakest. I'm not sure that it adds anything to the content, anyway. --Christine (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1990s

• The character Zoe was created to include more female Muppets on the show and to break female stereotypes. How about a tiny bit of elaboration? Which stereotypes did they target, how did she break them, etc?

I expanded this line in a note that I believe elaborates Zoe's character. Let me know if it's adequate. --Christine (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2000s

• This section relies heavily on the "By 200x..." construction. Can we find ways to vary that a little?

Done. Gods, you sound like my husband--"Can we?" really translates to, "Christine, you should..." and then a list of tasks to add to my already overwhelming list. Which is why he sends me to watch figure skating every couple of years! ;) --Christine (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When the show premiered in 1969, 130 episodes a year were produced; in 2009, twenty-six episodes were made. This could use some context. Why did the change take place, and what was the effect?

It was for economic reasons, which I included.

Good luck with it! Kudos again for your fine work. Scartol •  Tok 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, pal! I appreciate your input, as always. --Christine (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be conducting the GA review; there is SUCH a backlog that it will just never get evaluated if left in the GA queue. I have performed only 11 edits on this article, and those were all minor and related to copyediting. I feel this makes me sufficiently impartial to evaluate this article using the standard GA criteria. I hope to complete the review in the next week. Jhfortier (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they did not include actually who started sesame place on the streets of New york Fann Lee and friends the idea was stollen from them by the mayor at that time who presented to television and left them out. Fann lee even has the original scetch of Big Bird that is just another form of evidence how the whites back then stole from the blacks. my name is rosalind and know that was unfair to this woman and her friends who worked hard to improve the education for all children in the 60's whe there was racism. she even have letters from the arents that she saved with thanks for her dedication now why as she left out was it because she was african-american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.87.94 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rosalind, everything's a

Cite your sources, and make sure that they're reliable and verifiable, and you can add the information to this (or any) article. Christine (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The other story that seemed a good example of how the production changed to meet the audience needs was the introduction of Jason Kingsley.[3] His mom was a writer on the show and as a young mother had been told to give up on him as he had Down syndrome. She didn't and the company ended up having him on for dozens of appearances.

Also missing is their three part - I think - series for returning war veterans.[4][5] I think the parts were leaving, coming home/amputees, and not coming home (death). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadercrusher (talk • contribs) 10:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input, and all these things are interesting, but we can't add them unless they're written up in a reliable source. I'm fairly certain that adding information gained from attending a lecture constitutes

original research

. Now, if someone had recorded the lecture and put it on YouTube, I think that would be reliable enough.

As far as what you're suggesting we add, however, one of the challenges with this and any

Zoe in his book, and the whole marketing part about her, but I chose not to include it here. I think that the information fits better in her article. He doesn't mention CTW's push to buy the characters after Henson's death, although he does talk about Disney's push to acquire them. Again, that info better belongs in Jim Henson or in The Jim Henson Company

. CTW's outreach to war vets is mentioned in the parent article, along with a discussion of their outreach. Kingsley is also mentioned in the parent article. The "Tickle Me Elmo" info doesn't belong here, either, other than a mention, which it currently has.

I think that you can see that there's a great deal of work that needs to be done with Sesame Street articles. We could probably start a project about it. I've tried to do my part, and I think what I've been able to do is substantial. The parent article, for example, currently has great sources and has greatly improved since the days when it was downgraded from FA-status. I also think that this article is a great contribution to the body of articles about The Show on WP. (After some copyedits, I plan to submit it for FAC.) I welcome your contributions. If you wanted to improve the Zoe article, for example, I recommend purchasing Davis' book and adding what he has to say about her, and then do a google search for other information. All of Henson's articles need work, and there has been an awful lot written about him as well. I recommend just choosing an article that strikes your fancy, researching it, and adding your contributions. The more, the merrier. Christine (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]