Talk:Sesame Street/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Infobox

As a rule, I tend to dislike infoboxes. On a purely aesthetic level, they're ugly. They often breakup the flow of an article. I understand that this is a personal issue, and for that reason, I use them, even in some of the FAs I've managed. However, infoboxes aren't for every article. Depending upon the type of article, they can be redundant and serve no purpose. WP policy doesn't state that all articles should have them, so it's left at the discretion of the editors to include them. As a result, I would like to see the infobox in this article removed. I believe that this article is one of the articles that infoboxes serve no constructive purpose. As a matter of fact, the infobox here takes away from its quality. At one time, the infobox here was almost half the length of the article. It opens up the article to the inclusion of all kinds of unnecessary and often erroneous information.

For example, the broadcast information is simply incorrect. There was no "PBS" in 1969 when the show premiered. According to Gerald Lesser in Children and Television, there was no organized network of public TV stations at the time. NET was an early failed attempt to do so. This information needs to be reflected in this article (which will, in the next few days, when I get around to it), and placing PBS or NET in this category is inaccurate and forces the article into a non-existent category. I'm not saying we should remove the infobox at the current time, but once this article is in better shape, I advocate that we do so. Christine (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New article

As if this article doesn't have enough offshoots/children, a new article should be created, Sesame Street Magazine. Research shouldn't be all that difficult. A good place to start is in the G is for Growing book, pp. 197-214. I may create it, if only to add another ? to my growing list of DYKs. Christine (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry but I can't put in the 4 tildes as I'm in Germany where I have a German keyboard and don't know how to create it!

I have added a short paragraph on the history of Sesame Street about the late Harold "Doc" Howe, then the dynamic US Commissioner of Education and his, and my role, as the project officer for for the CTW project. He was an avid believer in funding something great which would survive the Johnson Administration and be "the best" thing we ever funded. He was also committed to getting his friends at Ford, Carnegie (Morrisett was his close friend), and Corp for Public Broadcasting to commit to very long term, generous funding to get the most creative people money could buy. He believed, as did I, that each show should have emotional (affective) content which would result in more indelible learning. He appointed me to be project officer for CTW funding. Later after its success, we made its funding a line-item in the Federal education research budget and I had to defend the big budget item before Congress. Showing how each show was an R&D effort, with formative and summative evaluation, (The CTW Model) helped immeasurably. Without "Doc" Howe, Morrisett, and Joan Cooney, it would never have begun and without a host of others like Jim Henson and Lesser, it would not have survived. I have recently communicated with Joan Ganz Cooney about this. Otherwise, I think you have an excellent article. Harold C. Lyon Guest Professor of Medical Education Ludwig Maximilians University Munich Halclyon@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halclyon (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Lyon, thank you for your kind comments. I'm the main editor for this article and many other Sesame Street-related articles here on Wikipedia. You might have noticed that I reverted your addition; the reason is that this project has strict requirements regarding citing sources. (Please see WP:V). I know that both Davis and Morrow mention Doc Howe, but I chose not to include it because this article can only be a summary. If you were to include the same information, but with valid sources, it would be allowed. I also recommend that you create an article about Howe; he's certainly important and notable enough. Christine (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"The CTW Model"

Perhaps you've noticed that I changed the subheading "Research in production" to "The CTW Model". I did this because I think it's a more accurate description of CTW's research process in creating The Show, and their use of formative and summative research. That was lacking in previous versions of this article, and demonstrates the necessity of doing complete research. The more research I've done on Sesame Street, the fuller and more complete a picture I've gotten on this topic. It's taken a long time, but it's been quite the learning process for me. I think that this change makes for a better section and for a better article. The other thing the change does is start a subsection with the word "the", something I know isn't encouraged in WP, but something that I think should be an exception in this case. If anyone out there disagrees, we can talk about it and change the subheading again, to "CTW Model". Christine (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Split one section please

Recently, I split the media section into its own article of Sesame Street media to keep this article short. But now this article is getting longer again, and this time I don't know what the best section to split is. Any suggestions?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. Much of that is my fault. I keep finding new stuff to add! You should know that I'm completed combing through my book sources, and I'm now looking at some articles. Part of the issue is that there has been so much written about The Show. I think this is gonna be a long article, no matter what we do. That being said, understand that the current version is a very, very rough draft. "Educational goals", for example, is in dire need of a good copyedit, which I intend to do in the coming week or two. As far as splitting, I think that the sections that have the potential to be moved are subsection "CTW model" and parts of "Influence", in an article entitled "Sesame Street research" or the like. Remember, any time we split off a new article, we need to include a summary, like what I've done with the "History" section. (We should've done that with the media sections that were removed, but I haven't been able to think about that much.) Personally, I think that this article is much improved since I took it on over a year ago. Yes, the prose sucks, but the content is excellent. I can see the prose improving to the point that we bring it to GA by the end of this year. Christine (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Update: As stated above, I've completed splitting off the research info into its own article, Sesame Street research. Not a bad job, if I must say. This article is still long, but it's getting better. I'm of two minds about this. The subject matter is so huge, so its article is going to be long. The goal in addressing a topic that has a lot of information out there about it is to summarize it all. I think that the current version of this article does an adequate job of doing that. (While it's true that I haven't read and/or accessed everything ever written about The Show, I think that I've been able to hit and use all of the major sources.) In addition, I'm not sure that there's anything more that can be split. Of course, I say that with the full understanding that I may be too close to be able to cmake that decision. I wonder, then, if we should ask for some fresh eyes. I've already asked User:Moni3 to copyedit History of Sesame Street, so perhaps I should ask others in my pool of editors. If anyone else can think of good editors to look at it, please do so. Christine (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox revisited

I've gone on the record saying how much I have always hated the infobox here. It's ugly; it's obtrusive; it provides absolutely no information one can glean from the article. There's nothing that says, even in Wikipedia policy, that every article needs an infobox. For some articles, they add a lot, but not this one. It provides too much temptation for the kiddies that like to vandalize this article, and for those obsessed with Sesame Street minutiae. (That's what Muppet Wiki is for, wacka-wacka. I can just hear people say, "But Fozzie was never on The Show!"). If anyone reverts it without discussion, I promise that I will revert it back, even if it means breaking my perfect record for not getting into edit wars. If you'd like to discuss it and give good and logical reasons for putting the infobox back, please do so here. Christine (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your personal feelings aside, infoboxes provide a useful function, summarizing and condensing pertinent details about topics. You've not provided a valid rationale for its removal, other than you hate it. I've restored it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; I have given plenty of valid rationales. My main rationale is that the infobox here provides no information that can't be gleaned from the article. I don't think that it summarizes anything, or that it condenses "pertinent details". For example, the article clearly states when The Show premiered; the number of episodes isn't at all pertinent. It makes an already-long article even longer. The broadcast information is unimportant and inaccurate; see my statements about that above. I also think that this infobox gets into trivia, something that's discouraged in Wikipedia. Hopefully, that's good enough for you. I won't revert until this controversy is settled. Christine (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments: "It's ugly" - personal opinion. "It's obtrusive" - personal opinion. "It provides absolutely no information one can glean from the article" - it's not supposed to - it's supposed to provide a quick summary for those who just want quick summations of pertinent points, and NOT have to scour the article for those details - which are explained further in the text. You removal of it damages the article for those who wish to view such a summary. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that we're getting into a philosophical argument. Philosophically, I don't see the need for infoboxes as a rule. I mean, not every article on WP, not even every featured article, has an infobox. I think that for some articles, infoboxes force categorization when the subject matter simply doesn't fit into a category. The infobox for this article, for example, tries to summarize things that simply didn't exist back in 1969, like PBS or how we currently see public television. I'm sure there's some historical reason for the convention of infoboxes for certain articles and not others has been established, but we're not here to debate that. I'll drop this for now, but be assured that I'll bring it up again, probably as we get further along in the assessment/improvement process. In the meantime, I'm combing it now to see what is unnecessary and inaccurate. Christine (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing reference

Footnote 8 cites a work done by an author named Hellman but there is no work by an author with that name listed in the References section.

Just a formatting issue, easily fixed. Thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Article forking

In the interest of our goal of shortening this article, and on the advice of my informal Wiki-mentor User:Scartol, [1], I have created a new article, Format of Sesame Street, and summarized the "Format" section here. I'll move onto the other sections that can be decreased in the coming days. At this point, it's still too long, but it's improved in this area, I believe. Anyone with feedback, please participate. Christine (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Music and goals seem to be sections where some forks could be good. But unsure about splitting format. That seems so intrinsic to a show's listing. - jc37 23:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
But did you see what I did, Jc? There's still a "Format" section, but it's much shorter and has a link to the new article, which is much longer and expands on the ideas more. That's what I mean to do for each section that splits off. Christine (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I know what forking is : )
It's just that I'm not sure that Format was the place to do it, is all.
I do think splitting the music section (and maybe expanding it - could look in the page's history to see where it may have been shrunk for space reasons and re-expand) would be a good idea. Since it would also allow for categorisation with other similar music articles.
And Educational goals of Sesame Street, really sounds like a decent article, as well.
I did a quick search and didn't see any other shows which split out the format section (though I'll admit I only looked at a few.) Did you see any other examples? - jc37 20:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually really like the new Format article. Can we keep it, please? ;) Seriously, no, there hasn't been any precedent for similar articles. I have a theory about that. The format of Sesame Street is pretty important. Comparable to it is Blue's Clues (another article I've had major involvement with), which is all about format and structure, but it's a much shorter article with not as much written about it. Other than BC, there really isn't many more television shows, for children or otherwise, that focus so much on format. Therefore, I think that it warrants its own forked article. (I have all kinds of theories about the importance of the format of children's TV shows, but that's a book that has never been written before.)
I agree about "Music"; previous versions were never as long, and consisted of songs/albums/etc. I think that a new article could use expanding on the current information here, especially some more recent info. I'll go ahead and fork it off and maybe put a template on it. Oh, and Educational Goals, too, as per Scartol's advice. Christine (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not strongly opposing, I just feel (as you seem to) that the format of the show is an important part of it, and that I'm just not sure splitting there is the best way to go.
And as an aside, it seems to me that the format is more than somewhat tied to the "Educational goals". So maybe a bit of a re-arrange might be better? - jc37 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be unopposed to restructuring (har-har) this article. (Should we convene a curriculum seminar?) Are you talking about moving "Educational goals" up or "Format" down? Personally, I think that if we re-structure, "Educational goals" should move up to where "Format" is now, and then "Format" should be a subsection of it. Christine (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
(de-dent) That might work. But I was thinking more along the lines of keeping "format" abbreviated, and merging all the format info and the educational goals info to a forked article. With the forked page being called educational goals. if that makes sense. Essentially your suggestion, but in a forked article. - jc37 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So if we did what you suggest, that would mean that we'd have to have the Format article deleted? Did you know that it was a DYK yesterday? ;) I see no problem in having two articles, Format of Sesame Street and Educational Goals of Sesame Street, but put the abbreviated content together. I maintain that the format of this particular TV show is important enough to warrant its own article. Christine (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

When? Statistical fact in lead

There is currently a sentence in the last paragraph which reads: "95% of all American preschoolers had watched the show by the time they were three years old." This begs the questions: who conducted the survey, and more importantly when was this survey conducted? I don't really doubt the fact presented (95% of preschoolers had watched the show), although I could probably quibble about the exact figure, but these sorts of statements are exactly the type that needs precision and citation within Wikipedia. The year that this fact is talking about is absolutely vital to understanding the context. Imagine reading that sentence 100 years from now...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ohms, remember that leads are supposed to summarize the article. I've heard different opinions about leads, one of them being that it's not necessary to cite everything in them, unless they're direct quotes. You can find the source of that statement later in the article, in the subsection "Ratings", under the section "Reception". There are two issues here. One is that as an editor, I'm a very weak lead-writer, and since I wrote this lead, this is on me. If you think that statement should be cited, I can oblige. Or I can make it more precise, if you like. The other issue is the length of this article, which makes it difficult to check facts from the lead. If you read the comments made above on this talk page, you'll see that this is something I'm actively working on. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand the difficulty with lead sections, as I have similar troubles myself. Regardless, statements such as these really do require some precision, regardless of the length of the article. It only really required what... 4 words? to fix, anyway. I reused the same reference in the lead, as well. I hope that you don't take this criticism too personally, as it was really intended to be constructive all along. I had no idea that you were primarily responsible for writing the lead before now, either. Quite often lead sections are very collaborative, so my message above was written to be read by the general audience here rather then you personally. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yah, you did exactly what I would've done. I don't take your feedback personally at all, but welcome it. Thanks for your assistance, and I'll add more on your talk page. Christine (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sesame Street

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sesame Street's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cooney-xii":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Where to go next

As I work on this article and some of its related articles, the long-term goal is the improvement of this one, The Parent Article. I've gotten some help from other editors, but this has basically been something I've done on my own. I think that following through with my threat to create a Muppet Wikiproject would go far in enlisting the assistance of other editors, and I intend on doing that once I'm further along with some of the SS-related articles I'm working on. That being said, I think that this article has come a long way since it was delisted as a FA in 2008. Wouldn't it be cool if this article was TFA for The Show's 42nd anniversary in November? At the very least it should be a GA by that time, and I think that's doable.

I've been able to create several sub-articles from this one. Currently, I'm working on Sesame Street media. When I'm finished, I'd like to come back here and create a new section, "Other media", and include several already-existing sub-sections into it: "Music", "Animation and short films", and "International co-productions". Once that's completed, I'd like to take this article to GAC, so I'll enlist some of my favorite editors to help with copyediting. It will be a large undertaking. It may be a good idea to create the project first to drum up support. At any rate, I have now declared my intentions for this article. I'd appreciate any and all help. Christine (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My contribution to the Sesame Street article

I have added a short paragraph on the history of Sesame Street about the late Harold "Doc" Howe, then the dynamic US Commissioner of Education and his, and my role, as the project officer for for the CTW project. He was an avid believer in funding something great which would survive the Johnson Administration and be "the best" thing we ever funded. He was also committed to getting his friends at Ford, Carnegie (Morrisett was his close friend), and Corp for Public Broadcasting to commit to very long term, generous funding to get the most creative people money could buy. He believed, as did I, that each show should have emotional (affective) content which would result in more indelible learning. He appointed me to be project officer for CTW funding. Later after its success, we made its funding a line-item in the Federal education research budget and I had to defend the big budget item before Congress. Showing how each show was an R&D effort, with formative and summative evaluation, (The CTW Model) helped immeasurably. Without "Doc" Howe, Morrisett, and Joan Cooney, it would never have begun and without a host of others like Jim Henson and Lesser, it would not have survived. I have recently communicated with Joan Ganz Cooney about this. Otherwise, I think you have an excellent article. Harold C. Lyon Guest Professor of Medical Education Ludwig Maximilians University Munich Halclyon@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halclyon (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Lyon, thank you for your kind comments. I'm the main editor for this article and many other Sesame Street-related articles here on Wikipedia. You might have noticed that I reverted your addition; the reason is that this project has strict requirements regarding citing sources. (Please see WP:V). I know that both Davis and Morrow mention Doc Howe, but I chose not to include it because this article can only be a summary. If you were to include the same information, but with valid sources, it would be allowed. I also recommend that you create an article about Howe; he's certainly important and notable enough. Christine (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Christine,
Thanks for your quick response to my added paragraph on the history of Sesame Street, your "reverting" my addition, and your comment that if I were to site sources that you would allow it. First of all, where can I find my addition as I wanted to go back and not only add a source or footnote (for my book: Lyon HC. Learning to Feel-Feeling to Learn, Charles Merrill. Columbus Ohio, 1974) which presented the concepts I fought for for Sesame Street of integrating affective with cognitive for more indelible learning, but also make some minor edits but now, being new to Wiki editing, I do not know how to find my addition you removed. Where is it?? Please advise.
More importantly, having been personally present when we had these early discussions and stimulating brain-storm sessions on the CTW and Sesame Street, and also personally having been project officer for the CTW project, and having sat on the CTW Advisory Board interacting with Jerry Lesser and Joan Cooney on these issues, I was there as an eye witness and don't know how to provide a better source than that. What do you suggest I do for citing sources?
Thanks for your suggestion that I add an entry on Harold Howe II. I was considering this and have some perspective on this unique and outstanding educational leader having served as Assistant Deputy Commissioner with him. I know of several others who would also have good insight about him including Sam Halperin and Joel Tractenberg. But again, my work with him was one-on-one and how do I add source for personal experience with a man? Best Wishes Halclyon (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC) (I now am home with a US Mac and can make these tidles!
Dr. Lyon, everyone's contributions are always welcome, of course. Before you do so, however, I suggest that you bone up on Wikipedia procedure. It's our practice, for example, to put responses on talk pages below the conversation and indent them with colons. I recommend going to WP:Introduction, which will also lead you through tutorials about how to edit for Wikipedia. You'll quickly learn that this project discourages original research, so as valuable as your insight is, it shouldn't be included here. On a personal note, and as someone intensely interested in the History of Sesame Street (a featured article that I wrote}, your involvement with The Show's early development is fascinating and would be a great addition to the already huge amount of Sesame Street-related publications. In the meantime, your contributions to this encyclopedia, especially in the Sesame Street articles here would be greatly appreciated. Christine (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Huge citing errors in article description and citing list

Seems that citing is not correctly formatted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcharkov (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sesame Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I will get around to this one, but I am a tedious reviewer so be warned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Bring it on, baby! Any way you can help. I just respect you for being willing to take it on, so thanks. Christine (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a habitual overlinker, but I would like to see a lot more terms linked. I am just looking at the WP:LEAD tonight, but here is what I see:

I used to be, too, but after the statements about overlinking were made, I went the other extreme. Sometimes, I just don't know if a word has an article about it, so I don't bother to find out because I'm basically a lazy person. I don't think that wikilinking is necessary all the time, especially when the meaning is obvious, either by the context or an expectation of general knowledge. However, I did link most of what you suggest below. Christine (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
LEAD
  • link or explain "measurable outcomes", production values, "cognitive, affective, and outreach goals"
  • link the following: children's television, animation, short films, preschool, curriculum, television producer, addictive, grant, commercial television
  • consider linking the following: reviews, educational television, US federal government, broadcasts
  • Spell out Grammys and Emmys
    Um, not sure what you mean by this. Christine (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I mean link Grammy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Duh, of course. Don't know why it's necessary, but whatever you say, dude. Christine (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that we are starting at 2729 characters of readable prose in the LEAD. We want to stay under 3000.
    Yes, I realize. I actually worked hard at keeping it as short as it now is. It's a long article, so it was a challenge. Christine (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We will revisit the LEAD after I read the rest of the article and determine if the LEAD properly summarizes it. However, keep in mind that a summary of each major section should be incorporated into the LEAD. Revise the LEAD according to this plan while I get around to the rest of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    I look forward to your input with the Lead; writing leads is one of my weakest areas of WP content, so I always welcome assistance. Christine (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
History
  • I am seeing redundant links with the WP:LEAD. The first two links in the section for public broadcasting, and ratings are for terms linked previously. Please see WP:OVERLINKING. Do not link the same term multiple times. We assume the reader learned what he need from the link in its first instance. The 4th, 5th and 6th links for Joan Ganz Cooney, Carnegie Foundation, and Lloyd Morrisett are also redundant and the 7th is for a term that should have been linked in the LEAD (Children's television series).
    I agree that there is overlinking going on, and I will fix them. However, it's my understanding that you link each term twice--the first time in the lead, and then one more time the first time it's used in the body of the article, to accommodate people who either only read the lead or skip reading the lead. So that means that I'd link Cooney in the lead, and then one more time in the first line of the "Origins" section. It that correct? (BTW, what do you think of the re-name, which was done by another editor? Personally, I'm not sure I like it, but I'll go with the consensus.) Christine (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I have never heard of linking everything the first two times.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I think I prefer History.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I will defer to your judgment as the reviewer re: linking. I agree with you, so I changed the heading back. 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Christine (talk)
    3 of the first 4 links in the main body continue to be redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Good eye, thanks for the catch. I saw one more than you did. Christine (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The whole first paragraph seems to repeat the LEAD. The lead is suppose to summarize the rest of the article, meaning that anything in the LEAD should appear in greater detail in the main text.
    Now that I look at the lead closely, I agree that it currently doesn't summarize the entire article adequately. I promise to work on it as we go through this review. To start, I cut out some of the redundancy. Christine (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What does this mean "change from the traditional magazine format to a narrative format in 2002"?
    Remember, this article is basically made up of summaries of several forked articles. This section, for example, is a summary of History of Sesame Street, which is a FA, btw. But you're right; the difference between the two terms--magazine and narrative formats--is unclear here. My solution is to remove "traditional magazine format" completely and explain what it meant by "narrative format," which meant that I had to change the sentence's structure a bit. I think it works. Christine (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    O.K., but link storyline to something on that dab page upon its first use earlier.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Got it. Christine (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What about "changes in viewing habits of young children"?
    Again, see above re: summarization. It refers to their discovery that little kids can attend longer than they thought. My inclination, though, is to cut the phrase. Christine (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Which type of Emmy is "Outstanding Achievement Emmy"? Is it a Primetime Emmy Award Is this the retired category "Outstanding Program Achievement by Individuals in Daytime Drama" or "Individual Achievement in Animation" or something else?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    I went back and rewatched the clip (I've said this before--research for WP is such a burden!--and changed it to its more accurate title of the award, Emmy for Lifetime Achievement. ;) Christine (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Please mention 36th Daytime Emmy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Done. Christine (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since you deleted "production values", addictive, grant, and television producer from the LEAD, you need to link them or explain it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Ugh, you're right. Christine (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Be careful when linking terms like grant. Now you have to fix it and a bunch of other dabs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, I always forget about that little tool. Got em. Christine (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Links still necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link book royalties, product licensing--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Done. Christine (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Format
  • The following first sentence is a nightmare
    As writer Cary O'Dell has stated, Sesame Street's producers, from its first episode, have used elements of commercial television in structuring the format of the show: "a strong visual style, fast-moving action, humor, and music"
    Note the the first phrase is a throwaway. It adds almost nothing.
    "from its first episode" is suppose to be modifying Sesame Street, but it is placed to modify producers. Move it to replace the throwaway.
    O.K. but as well as is serving as a conjunction and should not be preceded by a comma unless the subsequent phrase is independent, which it is not since it has no subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Removed comma. I tend, to be, a serial comma user. ;) Christine (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What does "elements of commercial television" mean?
    I've addressed all of the above. Restructuring the first sentence required restructuring the second as well. You know your tendency towards overlinking? At some point in my editing career, someone told me that I need to attribute everything, so many of my articles include phrases like, "According to so-and-so..." and way too much. My opinion is that these kinds of things, like linking, tend to have pendulum swings, so this review will help me go more in the middle. Christine (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the meaning of the following sentence: "each episode was structured like a magazine that would allow the producers to use a mixture of styles, paces, and characters."
    Ugh, the entire paragraph was a mess. I've come to the conclusion that the magazine analogy isn't a very good one, or at least people tend to have a tendency to not understand what it means. I have a feeling it's an industry term, and sometime those of us who are very familiar with the show can get. As a result, it has to be explained very carefully, which isn't appropriate for a summary like this one. So I removed the phrase, since the concept is explained in the next few sentences, anyway. Christine (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link child psychologists
    Done.
  • Does "attended to the shows" mean paid attention to show?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it does. Made the change.
  • commercial television does not need to be linked again here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Dealt with in the deletions made. Christine (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Educational goals
Funding
  • $8 million needs to be converted to current dollars. (see Bobby Orr for an example)
    It has a footnote that can be used. No reader will know whether 8 million then is 20, 40 or 60 million today. Daily fluctuations are not that important compared to the general magnitude of order of the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    I still respectfully disagree. If you still want this, then please direct me to a source that converts US dollars. Christine (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by a source. I think the following would benefit the article: $8 million ($66 million in 2024 dollars[1])--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link licensing arrangement and corporate sponsorship.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    Linking done. Here's what I think about converting the $8 million to current dollars. I don't think it's necessary. Firstly, you're the first reviewer I've come across who has demanded it. Currency, as recent history has shown, fluctuates greatly and there's no way to know if it's accurate the day someone reads it. I think the reader is smart enough to know that $8 million in 1969 is different than $8 million today. I suppose it would be okay if there was a source out there that states, "In today's money, that's..." Another way I'd do it is if there was a chart that converted money amounts into today's currency, and then I'd relegate it in a note. Christine (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Research
  • link child science, professor.
    Done.
  • Not sure I understand how "research to shape the program directly" fits in with other three stages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I thought that the concept--a formal definition of the CTW model--was important enough to have as a quote, so I hesitate changing, paraphrasing, or removing it. And I'm not sure what you don't understand. Christine (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Writing
  • their goals -> its goals.
    Changed to "the show's goals" instead, since it's really talking about the researchers and producers' goals, not the notebook's.
  • link or explain story arc, costumes, lights, and sets--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Didn't link lighting, because I wasn't able to find an appropriate article. Christine (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Media
Ratings
  • Is the following grammatically correct: "but it earned a 3.3 Nielsen rating, or 1.9 million households"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Probably not, so changed to "which totaled". Christine (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Influence
  • link Research study
  • If you use "Educational Testing Service (ETS)" in one location, subsequent locations should just use ETS.
  • link "Summative research" fully the first time and then don't relink here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    Got these. Christine (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Critical reception

The article seems to be missing some things. I want to see a separate section on the characters, more on the music and some discussion on shows and pop culture arising from Sesame Street.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; sorry it's taken a some time to address the above comments, things have been a little busy IRL. Here's my view about what you think should be added. Regarding the characters: I just added the characters lists under the "Cast and crew" section, which has a great deal about the show's characters. Actually, I think there's information about the characters scattered all through this article, so I think that creating a new section would be redundant. I think that what you may mean is that you'd like to see more information about the Muppets, and their place in Sesame Street. What that would mean, at least for me, is that I'd have to work on that article so I can summarize it here. In the meantime, I don't think that it should get in the way of a GAC for this article, since there's plenty, IMO, information about the characters already here. (I do think it should get in the way of an FAC, but that's another issue.)
Regarding music: There's already a link to Music of Sesame Street, under "Media". I think it's enough. Regarding shows and pop culture: I think what you're getting at here is that you'd like to see more about how the show has influenced our culture, and I believe that it's already here, in "Influence". And anyway, I thought that there was a policy against listing trivia, which is what it would constitute, I think.
I would warn you and any other reviewer (and even other editors) against something. Sesame Street is something we all "own", something we all know well. In other words, pretty much every American in their mid-40s and younger are experts about Sesame Street. As a result, we all have ideas about what we think should go into its WP article. On this very talk page (as well as on other SS articles) I've warned against the tendency of many of us to want to put our own favorite tidbits, without considering if the information is notable or if it can be reliably sourced. On the character lists, for example, editors have said things like, "I remember this character when I watched The Show." My response is, That's nice, but your 4-year old memory isn't a reliable source." I'm not saying that's what you're doing, not exactly, but it seems to me that you're getting close, and it needs to be said every time this and other major SS articles are reviewed.
I'll address the outstanding issues, probably tomorrow, and revise the lead as requested. Christine (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article is on its way and I am placing it on hold. See comments above.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
To be honest, this surprises me a bit. I would've thought that you would've dinged me on this, since I think the images are woefully inadequate. The reason is that there are simply no free images available. I've even written SW to ask that they release some to Wikimedia, but I've received no response. (I probably need to write them a snail mail letter.) A solution, I believe, is to do the same thing as History of Sesame Street, an FA: add some quoteboxes. I will do that in the coming days, I promise. Christine (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Remaining outstanding issues:

LEAD
  • link the following: preschool, curriculum
  • We still need to determine if the LEAD properly summarizes the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    At the current time, the lead isn't adequate. Let me work on it before I do the linking. Christine (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Lead now re-written, and links completed. Please review and see if I've missed anything. Christine (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "It was the first time a children's television show used educational goals and a curriculum to inform its content."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    Clarified by changing to: "It was the first time the producers and writers of a children's television show used educational goals and a curriculum to create its content." Christine (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
History
  • Since you deleted "production values", addictive, and grant from the LEAD, you need to link them or explain it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Please comment on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      "Production values" doesn't have an article; "production" does, and it's already linked. Got "addictive", thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Funding
  • Explain your objection to using $8 million ($66 million in 2024 dollars[1]).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't see the formatting! Now it works great, and will be added immediately. Christine (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Overall
  • The article seems to be missing some things. I want to see a separate section on the characters, more on the music and some discussion on shows and pop culture arising from Sesame Street.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I saw comments about about characters. I looked at the very first article listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Theatre.2C_film_and_drama under "Live action television and radio" and saw 30_Rock#Cast_and_characters. Similary for the "Animation" section, I saw Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Characters. That is what this article needs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've thought about this feedback some. I wonder if the solution to this is as simple as changing the "Cast and crew" section to "Cast, crew, and characters". I say that because the characters are discussed there already. Yes, it talks in generalities, but the specifics belong in the character lists and articles about the individual characters. This section does, however, talk about the purpose of the Muppets, human actors, and kid actors, and I think it's more than enough. Regarding the pop culture feedback: Please provide reasons why you think it should be included. Christine (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
        • That section needs a subsection arranged like those I mentioned above. For example, I should be able to put garbage can in the find box and be moved to Oscar or yellow and find myself at Big bird. I don't know how much the human characters have changed over the years, but the Muppets probably have not changed much. A reader should be able to find out the guy in the garbage can on the Sesame Street article. Like any other well-written TV show article there will be mentions of the characters in the text. However, there should be a single section where brief summaries of the main characters is given with a {{main}} header to a main article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
          • But Tony, there already are mentions of characters throughout the text. Oscar, for example, is mentioned in the second section, "Format". Mr. Hooper, who appeared in the first episode, is in the lead. And the template is already below the "Cast, crew, and characters" section. I think that since there have been so many characters on the show, it's better, in this case, to simplify things by having a section that discusses them generally. I mean, how do we decide "major characters"? Would we include Chris because he's on the show now and has been for the last five years, but not Savion, who was on it for four years in the 90s but no one remembers anymore? It would make this article impossibly long. I don't think that in this case, your suggestion is untenable and would significantly detract from the rest of the content. (BTW, if you search for "trash can", Oscar does pop up.) Christine (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I am not asking you to work from memory and tell us what you know. I am asking you to help the reader distill properly sourced content from List of human characters in Sesame Street, Animated characters in Sesame Street and Sesame Street Muppets into one manageable list of notable characters on Sesame Street. I would be happy if you just made a list of all characters who have WP articles from those pages if there is no other source of who is important in the history of Sesame Street. You are taking responsibility for an overview article. Can the reader rely on you to give him an organized overview of the important characters. If you can't, I guess The Simpsons is featured without doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
              But the section in question already does what you're asking, Tony. Some of the content in the leads of those lists were lifted, almost word for word, from the content here. If I were to do as you ask--recreate those lists over here, that would make for a very long article. I think that this article already does discuss the important characters. As a matter of fact, way back in 2004, during this article's very first FAC, when it passed when standards for FAs were much lower, it was suggested that character lists be placed in separate lists. And when it was (rightfully) delisted in 2008, which inspired me to take it on, I believe that one of the reasons for it was that a character list had found its way back.
              And isn't any time an editor takes on a parent article like this one, she's taking a huge responsibility? I wish that I wasn't alone in it, and that others have contributed, but it hasn't happened that way. It's apt that you mention The Simpsons, because I've looked at it as a model for what a high-quality TV show article can be like. You're right, it doesn't have a character list, but does what you're asking here: summarize the content from the lists, but for this one, things are much more complicated. I stand by what I've done here. Christine (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on remaining issues from original concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I think I need some clarification on the concern above regarding "music and some discussion on shows and pop culture arising from Sesame Street".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about this some more in the last couple of days. I stand by what I said above about The Show's music. I'm starting to get, however, what you've said about shows and pop culture. I looked at The Simpsons again, and saw that it, like this article, has an "Influence" section, but whereas this article emphasizes the educational influences (which makes sense, because it is an educational show), The Simpsons emphasizes its influence on the vernacular and on other TV shows. The issue here, though, is that most of the major sources don't really talk about The Show in that way, probably because so much of its early history was dedicated to justifying its educational value to young children. Morrow, in his book about how The Show influenced the TV industry, basically says that it had very little influence, but he basically pooh-poohs Blue's Clues. To that end, though, I added some information about how The Show influenced BC. Is that what you're getting at, Tony? If so, I've come to the conclusion that I agree with you. I think that if this article were to be re-submitted for FAC, I would need to do more research about how The Show has influenced on our society more generally. Whether or not it affects this GAC, though, is up to you; personally, I don't think it should. Christine (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There should be an influence section with stuff like The Electric Company (1971 TV series), which I watched as a 1965 birth youth. I imagine that there are other shows. I remember watching these two and ZOOM (1972 TV series) all back to back in the early 70s. Let me know if you see anything about shows like The Electric Company in your sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      I loved The EC, too. ("Hey, you guys!") You're talking about other shows the Children's Television Workshop (now Sesame Workshop) produced. Those should be discussed at the SW article, not here. The CTW/SW has produced dozens of shows, and this isn't the place to discuss them, either. The SW article should (I don't know, because I haven't worked on it yet) discuss how The Show funded SW's other programs, and Sesame Street media should, too. I chose not to include it here because with the depth of the subject, you have to pick and choose what's important enough to include. I could add a sentence about how The Show's success helped fund, along with their international co-productions, fund other series, but I think that's all I should do. Christine (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      O.K. I am passing this. Add that sentence at your leisure. Thanks for your patience and dedication.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Old School DVDs

An anonymous IP added a new section ("Warning that the show is not appropriate for children") and the following content:

According to the New York Times, the packaging of a DVD release of Sesame Street episodes stated, "These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child." [2]

Then User:Onorem reverted it, and then reverted himself; I removed the content because I agreed with his original assertion, that the content doesn't belong in its own section. I do think, however, that the source is useable, but perhaps in another SS-related article, like Sesame Street media, in a discussion of the DVDs, or in Influence of Sesame Street, in the "Critical reception" section. Christine (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is a legitimate source. The article in question says the warning exists because of the eating of cookies, a stranger approaching a child, Oscar behaving mean and grouchy, Big Bird possibly having hullucinations, and other things that were considered perfectly normal back then, but which some people find objectionable today. Perhaps the content does not deserve its own section. However, considering that wikipedia describes the program as a children's show, it is notable that the DVD set of the older episodes contains a warning that it is, in fact, not for children. 74.98.46.27 (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you. Of course the NYT is reliable. I'm saying that the content doesn't belong here, in this parent article. Please read what I wrote above, and consider placing the content in one of the other articles I mentioned. I'll help you fold in the content if you ask. Also, please consider registering for an account. Christine (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Christine, it's not notable enough for this overview. I'd personally give it a thumbs up as a note somewhere in the Sesame Street history article, perhaps even research (as it's the educational methods most at question, I believe, as opposed to the pipes and dangerous play on the DVDs) but certainly not here. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted images, archived requests / deletion log entries?

There seem to have been photographs of live shows portraying some of the characters. In particular, I am 100% positive that in 2010 there has been a file at this this http address on Commons, that must have been a thumbnail of File:Sesame_Street_Live_Out_of_this_World_-2.jpg - now it is gone, and what I find irritating is that I can not even find a deletion log entry, let alone an archived deletion request or -discussion. What happened here, can somebody help me out? - Seelefant (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Youtube channel hacking

today, more specifically right now, their YT channel is being hacked and porn is being uploaded. So far one clip has been uploaded and the banner changed to say Sesame Street: Its where porn lives! Worth a mention? 81.141.74.202 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it's worth mentioning in this article. If we were to place everything about The Show here, this already-long article would be really long. I'm not sure that it's notable enough; for one thing, there needs to be a reliable source out there about it, and for the other, it's probably not notable enough. If you find a source and are able to make a case to include it, go ahead. But I recommend that you register for an account first. Christine (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
While there are reliable sources out there, that's better suited for the Social media use by Sesame Workshop article I never get around to writing. It's a flash in the pan event, even if the show was only 4 years old, as opposed to 42 seasons in. To paraphrase a Big Bird song, "Everyone gets hacked, oh yes they do." Hacking stories are run of the mill, PlayStation network has been hacked like three or four times in the last couple months. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be protected!

So many trolls.... Editing the information and deleting the whole Wikipedia page. Is anyone going to make this article protected any time soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesy1131 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel your pain. Articles about children's shows are regularly attacked by vandals. If there are any administrators out there, I agree that this article could benefit from at least semi-protection. In the meantime, Cheesy, please make sure that you sign your posts. Christine (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've done a two-week semi for now, even though I know that it'll have to be renewed after that period's up. When it comes due, if someone can post on my page, and I'll come back and extend it for a few months at that point. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Great work, that will be helpful.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yah, thanks, Z! Christine (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sesame Street as science primer

Just noticed in USA Today that Sesame Street is going to start addressing science illiteracy, the article states that "young children are 'natural scientists'". I'm not "in tune" with all the dynamics of this page's history so I don't want to interfere but I think it would make a nice addition somewhere. Here is the link http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx Sgerbic (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sgerbic. Actually, there is information in this article and in its ancillaries about The Show's curriculum, which changes every five years or so and focuses on a different subject. Currently, they're on Science, so the street scenes at the beginning of each episode focuses on science, experiments, and problem solving. (The episode we just watched this morning, from the current season, was about the properties of bubbles!) I agree that there needs to be some information here or elsewhere added about the curriculum changing, but there isn't. (To be honest, I can't remember if it was never stated in the sources or if it was simply oversight on my part, the main editor of those articles.) It would be great if there was some source, even USA Today, that clearly states it. The problem is, though, I went to the source you provided, and it brought me to a news source (not USA Today) with nothing about the article itself. Would you mind providing the actual link to the article you're talking about, please? That would be very helpful. Christine (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
here's a couple, looks like there are a bunch more.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-09-25/sesame-street-stem-science-math/50548750/1 http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2011-08-08-sesame-street_n.htm Sgerbic (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Un-referenced Historical/Educational claims

A claim is made in the second paragraph of the Introduction — "It was the first time the producers and writers of a children's television show used educational goals and a curriculum to shape its content." — but no reference is made for it...and it is a rather large claim... There are numerous earlier TV shows with "educational goals" and arguably curricula which shaped their contents. This claim is therefore dubious and should be sourced...just saying... In fact, if one goes down to the "Educational Goals" section of the article itself, qualified statements are made that undermine the claim made in the Introduction. I suggest that this be remedied.

Emyth (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's practice to not include references, unless they're direct quotes, in the lead. The claims made are supported in refs 26. 27, and 28. Could you provide examples of how the statements made in the "Educations goals" section undermine the claim in the lead? Christine (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading statement

Twice in the article it says that the show was ranked 15th among children's shows "by" its 40th anniversary. The tone suggests that this is a good thing. But i checked the source, which describes it as being "only" 15th. I was surprised by the low ranking, thinking it would be closer to #1; and in the past it probably was. So it's misleading in the article. To say "by" its 40th anniversary makes it sound as if it finally progressed toward this, when in fact it's a substantial drop in popularity. Is there a source that states what its ranking was in the past? 206.116.243.76 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but what do you suggest we do about it? The first time this statement is made, it's in the lead, so I can see simply removing the phrase. The second time is in the "Ratings" section, which mentions The Show's rating decline in the early 1990s, earlier in the same paragraph. What do you think about: "It was ranked the fifteenth most popular children's show on television in 2009, the show's 40th anniversary." Would that solve the tone problem for you? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Excess wikilinking

There is so much blue type in this article, it's difficult to read. I can certainly understand wikilinking "summative" and words like that, but "self-esteem", "ratings", "animation", "costume"?? Are these really necessary to link to definitions? Unless you think the readers of the article are pre-schoolers who don't know their meanings (but know how to follow wikilinks), I can't really see the need. Am I missing something?--TEHodson 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. When this article went through FAC, a reviewer directed me to add at least some of those wikilinks. I'd be fine with removing some of them now, if you or anyone else wanted to be WP:BOLD. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hardly bold by my standards! I think you should do it, though, as I assume there are reasons I didn't understand for some of them being blue in the first place (hence my leaving a note, rather than doing it myself when I copy-edited the article).--TEHodson 23:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, TE, people are always givin' me more work to do! ;) I'll see what I can do about it in the next couple of days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I took a stab, trying to be conservative. The lead was actually the most overlinked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
I took out most of them, and unlinked things that were multiply linked. Christine, I wasn't giving you an assignment, but allowing you to pick and choose as it seemed you had reasons for doing what you did. It's done now.--TEHodson 04:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
All is good. Didn't ya see the emoticon, TE? And here's yet another one: ;)! I'll make a cursory pass as well. I appreciate your hard work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Episode page

I was wondering why we don't have a page for this show's episodes and the sub-pages for its seasons. Does anyone have any comment on that? Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 9:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm serious when I ask this, Rtkat3: Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what that would entail? 42 seasons, over 4,000 episodes--where in the world are the references for that? And anyway, it's already been done, and well, over at Muppet Wiki. A great resource but not Wikipedia, which has higher standards for reliability. Personally, I don't it's necessary to replicate what's already been done, and Sesame Street should be represented differently over here, as a summary of the studies and literature about The Show. But that's just my opinion, so if someone else wants to tackle that monster, feel free. It's just not gonna be me; I have other monsters to tackle, and they ain't red and furry and cute! ;) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by figureskatingfan (talk • contribs)
I'm just stating that the episodes for this show should have an episode guide with subpages like they did for the seasons of The Simpsons and Saturday Night Live. Maybe someone can help us on that someday. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally feel that only episodes that have received extensive press coverage or been singled out in books (but not the random episodes in the 40th anniversary volume) are worthwhile to have on here. Check out "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce" for an unaired example. But just even the fact that we simply don't know the plots of hundreds if not thousands of the episodes, it's not worth it doing a complete episode guide. That, and the fact early street scenes were often just random, unrelated happenings. It was really in the 1980s that finally all episodes had continuous street scenes.
One difference between SS and SNL or Simpsons, the latter two are shown in syndication. Sesame episodes are retired after three years, on average. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know about the Snuffy divorce article, but it looks like it at least has the potential to be improved. Its references cursory look pretty good. Consequently, I'm watchlisting it with the intention of eventually improving it. That brings up a good point, though: it may be appropriate to create articles about specific episodes like this one, episodes like the one about Mr. Hooper's death, which is extensively discussed in Street Gang and has been written about inthe press a great deal, and the episodes after 9-11, which got a lot of attention in the press. Something to think about, especially if anyone's interested in creating new SS articles. See, that's what discussion is for, to take an idea that's initially discounted and expand it to some great and workable ideas to improve Sesame Street in the project. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(One side note, I think there was an episode guide page years ago, and it was deleted shortly after Muppet Wiki was created. Just as figureskatingfan was predicting, it became unwieldly, lacked sources, and lacked relevance. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As episodes guides usually do...which is why I don't like em, as a rule. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand why there's no episode list, but can't there at least be a list of notable episodes? I can't find any sort of disambiguation of those episodes, and people going to the episode list are most likely looking for notable episodes. If that page is created, it would make a good redirect for List of Sesame Street episodes. Ndm13 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ndm13: I've actually been working on improving articles about notable episodes; for example, Mr. Hooper has a long section about his death and there's Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce, which is notable in the fact that it was never aired. There's also "Elmo's World". All three are GAs. I think the way to go is to improve individual articles about the more "important" episodes, and perhaps create a category of "Notable Sesame Street episodes". I feel strongly that Wikipedia isn't the place for users to find these episodes; rather, that's the purpose of Muppet Wiki. WP isn't a trivia repository. My goal as the main editor of most of the better WP articles about Sesame Street is for WP to be the place to go for solid, reliable, and even academic information and content about The Show. Listing episodes, even notable ones, is difficult because it's hard to support them with reliable sources. And who decides which episodes are notable? Is the Snuffy-reveal episode notable, and the episode in which Abby Cadabby is introduced not? So many of the episodes are clips that are played over and over again; how would that be handled? My suggestion is to find out what episodes are discussed in the literature, research them, and write high-quality articles about them. For example, I'd like to expand the Mr. Snuffleupagus article and discuss at length the reveal and why it was done, and I'd like to expand Abby's article because she represents the push for more female Muppets. So far, I've been alone in substantially improving these articles; I'd really appreciate the assistance and it'd make this encyclopedia a better place. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources

After all this time and after all the work that's been done on this and similar articles, I didn't think it was possible, but I've actually found a group of sources that have the potential of adding to their comprehensiveness. In 1990, the journal Educational Technology Research and Development devoted an entire issue to research and was written entirely by CTW researchers. See Volume 38, Issue 4, December 1990, which I have access to via my local university library. Eventually, I'd like to go through the issue and see what can gleaned from it. As WP's main editor of articles about Sesame Street, I would like to go on the record stating my opinion that the Workshop should publish an update to the "G" is for Growing book, because there's a need to summarize all the research projects conducted on The Show, especially since it was published in 2001. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Cast longevity

Given that Bob McGrath and Loretta Long have appeared on the show, as far as I'm aware, for 45 years without interruption, would that be record for longest time playing a single character in a single series in US television? I'm not aware of anyone with a longer track record, not even in soap operas. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The short answer, at least from me, is I dunno. I wouldn't be surprised if there were mention of McGrath's and Long's accomplishments in the popular press, though. Something one can research. I challenge you, dear anonymous IP, to do just that! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There may very well be sources discussing their long runs, but they are clearly not the "longest time playing a single character in a single series in US television". I don't know who that would be, but I figured a soap opera was a likely place to look. Sure enough: List of longest-serving soap opera actors#Top 10 across all platforms has Helen Wagner (who?) as the same character for 54 years. Lesley Saweard, a UK soaper, has 61 years in so far. (Saweard doesn't have a Wikipedia article, I assume, because WP:ENT requires 2 significant roles in notable productions and the UK press hasn't bother to write anything up.) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sesame Street Unpaved (series)

A repackaging of Sesame Street episodes does not warrant its own article, even if reliable, nontrivial sources exist. Alternate merge/redirect location might be History of Sesame Street#2000s and 2010s. Same rationale for Sesame Street Unpaved, which should be discussed in the greater context of the show. --Animalparty-- (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd go even further than that, and propose that the Unpaved article be deleted. I don't think that it even warrants a mention in the articles you mention, for the same reasons you cite for merging them. I agree, if every repackaged video were mentioned in this and other SS articles, it would be over-long and full of trivia. The Unpaved series doesn't even have reliable sources to warrant a mention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: It meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, and was counted as a separate series despite being a syndication package. Julian & Juan - From Julian Spencer (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: The reasons I have might not be significant but I don't think the enormous information of Sesame Street needs to be crammed into one very long article. If this article does not need to be on Wikipedia, then couldn't you at least move it to Muppet Wikia? In Correct (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is a disaster!

How come this article is featured? This article contains too much "secondary" information about The Show. Wikipedia articles are supposed to equally balance the amounts of primary, secondary, and tertiary information about their topics that they contain. One of my philosophies as a Wikipedian is that articles are best when they're balanced as far as their content is concerned. And overall, it looks like this article is written for academics interested in learning more about the show: the target audience that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for is complete outsiders with NO knowledge of their corresponding topics. See other featured TV articles such as those on Animaniacs, Blue's Clues, and The Simpsons.

In my sandbox, I've hatched up a plan to rewrite this article myself, with the following structure: "Premise: Format, Characters, Setting; Conception and development; Personnel: Performers, Producers and directors; Production: Educational goals, Research, Writing, Music; History: United States, International co-productions; Reception: Ratings, Influence, Awards and honors, Critical reaction; Other media: Merchandise, Home media, Literature, Films, Theme park, Video games" — with 200 to 300 words allotted for each subsection, and of course, with all content sourced, and all sourcing kept as reliable as possible. I want this page to be overhauled into something much more logically designed than it appears to be right now, because that is what I value in encyclopedic entries. -- SethAllen623 (talk) 04:04, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Disaster? Please. I'm sure there are other ways to express your opinions about this article, which has been featured since 2011. The reviewers at the time certainly thought that it fulfilled the featured article criteria, and it's been relatively stable, which is quite an accomplishment, since most articles about children's TV tend to be heavily vandalized. (I've always thought that this article should at least be semi-protected, but the admins obviously disagree.) Your opinions about what an article should be notwithstanding, we need to follow established WP policies, and this article does. You're correct that articles should be well-balanced; the FA criteria calls that "comprehensive" (see point 1b). However, you're incorrect about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. WP policy (see WP:PSTS) states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
The structure, BTW, follows the structure of similar articles about children's TV. Actually, the structure of this article, with exceptions based upon specific aspects of the shows like research (an important aspect of Sesame Street, according to most of the sources out there), is based upon Blue's Clues, another article I researched and brought to FA. This article's structure was designed by consensus.
A complete overhaul and a rewrite of this article is unnecessary. If you wish to make any changes, please continue to follow another policy, WP:TALK, and discuss what you want to change before you change it. If any substantial changes are made, it will no longer be a FA. If you like, you can submit it to FA review, and see if other reviewers agree with your estimation of how much of a disaster it is. I suspect that they will not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Christine on this. Of course there is room for improvement for every article and I suppose SethAllen could cite WP:BOLD in reply to the comments above, but before rewriting an article that has passed Wikipedia's often-notorious muster, I do recommend the user seek consensus. If any revisions are made, might I suggest a section on "adult-oriented crossovers"? Over the last 10 years Sesame Street's producers, recognizing that the show has a large fanbase of adults who remember it as children and now have children (and in some cases, even grandchildren) now watching it, have increasingly released promotional materials aimed at adults. Examples include the DVD sets of early episodes, online-distributed parodies of adult shows like Game of Thrones, and events such as Cookie Monster's several appearances on Saturday Night Live, the most recent airing just last night (April 11, 2015), and in 2010 his plea to host SNL even went viral. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
IP, if you can find any source that talks about the trend you describe, by all means include it. I look at it differently, though; the viral videos and Muppet appearances on SNL are more about the Workshop's attempts to use social media more effectively. They've always been really good at promoting the show in this way--figuring out what popular culture wants/demands, and providing it. It's nothing new; what makes it new is the use of more up-to-date techniques. Sesame Street has always parodied popular culture, and these days, they're what goes viral. However, if we were to list every instance in the past 50 years of what you're talking about, this list would be WP:FANCRUFT and too long. We need to look out for commentary about the concept behind the viral videos and appearances on SNL. I haven't seen any, but it's definitely something someone needs to research. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see anything wrong with this article. It explains the show to people who are reading an article about a TV show, not six-year-olds who want to watch Sesame Street. Also, this has many different sub-articles, so if someone wants to read further, they can see Category:Sesame Street. And regarding the statement "And overall, it looks like this article is written for academics interested in learning more about the show: the target audience that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for is complete outsiders with NO knowledge of their corresponding topics.", I really don't think people would not know about Sesame Street... Epic Genius (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Kermit The Frog is a paedophile"?

I believe this article has a problem... begins with the statement "Kermit The Frog is a paedophile" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.32.167.5 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. That was vandalism, which I reverted. —Bruce1eetalk 12:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"renamed in June 5, 2000"

The following segment of a statement ("renamed in June 5, 2000") is grammatically incorrect as when it concerns dates, specific day(s) are preceded by "on" instead of "in" the latter would be used for a term of time such as a month and year. Someone needs to change it on this protected article.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Took out the specific date, leaving just "in June 2000". Firstly, the exact date is not supported by the source. Secondly, that level of detail, even if it could be verified, isn't needed. Whoever added that date didn't fix the grammar at the time. Thanks for spotting it. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sesame Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017 (regarding Julia)

I am requesting to replace the following material in the section "History":

In April 2017, Sesame Street will introduce a new puppet called Julia with Autism to the show, and will be voiced by Stacey Gordon, who started Puppet Pie and has a son on the autism spectrum.

with this:

On April 10, 2017, Sesame Street introduced a new puppet called Julia with autism to the show, who is voiced by Stacey Gordon (who started Puppet Pie and has a son on the autism spectrum).

-- 2601:602:101:72D3:9962:61D9:8E89:5A74 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: When you say "On April 10, 2017", it is still in the future so, the sentence should be future tense right? or am I still living in the past.? Anyhow you need to provide a source to support the date. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dave Connell Link

In the section "Cast, Crew, and Characters", first paragraph, clicking on "Dave Connell" leads to the page of an Irish soccer player, not the animator on "Sesame Street". There doesn't seem to be an article for the animator, so I suggest removing the link. 192.161.72.14 (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the catch; removed the link. But you could've, ya know, made the correction yourself; it would've saved lots of time. But make sure that you register for a user account, since that will assist you in editing other articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Actuqlky, the IO editor could not. The article is indefinitely semi-protected to prevent vandalism, so only registered users can edit is. The IP did exactly what he was supposed to do, use the talk page to request an editor make the edit. oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Make an episodes section and split it into a new article called 'List of Sesame Street episodes' 217.44.242.45 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvements. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ronaldmirana66 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

Ronaldmirana66 (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Al Jarnow

I recently created an article for Al Jarnow, the animator whose shorts were fixtures of 1970s-1990s Sesame Street. Feel free to improve it. Thanks! Thriley (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sesamstreet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sesamstreet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 1#Sesamstreet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"How Crayons Are Made" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect How Crayons Are Made. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 1#How Crayons Are Made until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Annual Sesame Street Cookie Baking Contest" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Annual Sesame Street Cookie Baking Contest. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 1#The Annual Sesame Street Cookie Baking Contest until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

The last sentence of the first paragraph says "Sesame Street is one of the long-running shows in the world." Shouldn't this be "longest-running" and not "long-running"? I can't edit the article so I hope someone will fix this.

75.133.17.32 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks IP 75. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Level 4 Vital

I'm sorry, the fact that this is a Level-4 Vital article is hilarious, but true. I just had to mention that.

888idouxe (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, elitism about Sesame Street? Really? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Starting Date of Sesame Street

It currently lists a release date on PBS as starting in 1969. PBS lists its launch date as October 5, 1970.

Is Sesame Street incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelRpdx (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you cited the PBS source, we could check it out. For now, most sources state that The Show premiered on Novemeber 10, 1969. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
11/69 is its NET airdate, 10/70 is its PBS airdate. Nojus R (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Original creator

Why isn't the black psychiatrist that initiated the show mentioned?? 2601:2C5:C100:1607:A1B1:6A6E:908:6DCF (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Name and citation? oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sesame_Street/Archive_3&oldid=1125060840"