Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street research/archive3

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

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Sesame Street research

Sesame Street research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Sesame Street research/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Sesame Street research/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Sesame Street research/archive3

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is the third FAC for this article. I believe that it failed both times mostly due to lack of support. Reviewers, please do not be afraid of this article! It's about Sesame Street, for heaven's sake! ;) Seriously, it needs support to pass and is, IMO, a very interesting article and a good read. Thanks in advance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Review by GabeMc

General

• Any chance of adding an image to the lead?

As I've stated in previous FACs, images are a challenge with Sesame Street articles. The SW is fiercely protective of their images, and for good reason. Other editors have suggested adding the SS logo, but it's been rejected for use in the main article (a FA), so I doubt it would fly here. I understand that images in the lead aren't required for FAs, and I don't want to add content to the lead just so we can add an image there. If anyone can come up with a more brilliant idea, then please suggest.

• Sourcing. - Cite #28 ^ Knowlton, Linda Goldstein and Linda Hawkins Costigan (producers) (2006). The World According to Sesame Street (documentary). Participant Productions. This appears to be a video documetary, but if so, we need an "event location" to pinpoint which part of the doc you are citing to. In much the same way as a book cannot be cited to in general, without a page number, we also need a location for video media.

Ok, since I no longer have access to the documentary, I looked for other sources that back up the same thing and found better ones. Thanks.

• Sourcing. - Several of your access dates are two or three years old. While not an FAC requirement per se, it would be helpful to know that those links have been checked more recently.

Checked out. Since this article is mostly made up of sources that aren't "accessible", it was easy. ;)

Lead

• Copy-edit suggestion. - Consider combining these sentences: "The children's television show Sesame Street premiered on public broadcasting television stations in 1969. Unlike earlier children's programming, the show used research to both create the show and test its impact on its young viewers. As of 2001, there had been over 1,000 research studies examining the show's impact on children's learning and attention" into something such as: "In 1969, the children's television show Sesame Street premiered on PBS. The show's producers have utilized over 1,000 research studies in an effort to help them both improve programming and evaluate its impact on children's learning", or similar. The use of "As of 2001", begs the question: did the research stop 12 years ago?

Done, good suggestion. I suppose the year isn't important enough to mention, especially in the lead. It was there because it's the number cited in G is for Growing, which was published in 2001.

• Prose. - "Children's Television Workshop (CTW, the organization founded to oversee Sesame Street production) had developed what came to be called 'the CTW model'." Consider: "The organization founded to oversee Sesame Street production, Children's Television Workshop, had developed what came to be called 'the CTW model'", or similar.
• Prose. - "As co-creator Joan Ganz Cooney has stated," consider: "Co-creator Joan Ganz Cooney stated".
• MOS:LQ. - "'Without research, there would be no Sesame Street'." Should the terminal punctuation point be inside the quote marks?

All the above addressed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Background and development

• Prose. - "Sesame Street's use of research both to create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers". Omit "both" as redundant.
• Sourcing. - "called the idea of combining research with television production "positively heretical",[1] because it had never been done before." Move the citation to the end of the sentence, unless of course, the source does not support the assertion: "because it had never been done before", in which case, this claim would need to be sourced.

Above two addressed.

• Vague. - "set it apart from other children's programming" and "other children's television shows were criticized for being cartoons depicting violence and reflecting commercial values". This datum could perhaps use some specific examples for context.

The source doesn't really go into great detail and specifics. Other sources do, however; for example, Morrow and Davis discuss specific shows and how they were violent and commercial. I'm not sure this is the place for that kind of discussion, though, which is why I refer to the fact that Borgenicht made the statement and why I added the "vast wasteline" quote by Cooney in the note. I could just remove the statement if you still think it's too vague.

• Prose. - "which spelled out how television could be used". "Spelled out" in a bit unencyclopedic, consider a recast such as: "outlined", or similar.

Chose "described".

• Linking. - "and the creation of CTW". CTW is linked in the lead, but it should also be linked on its first mention in the article body.

Done.

• Support. - I've read the article several times now, and I think it is well-written, well-researched, and it appears to be quite comprehensive and neutral. Perhaps a few very minor prose issues remain, but there are certainly no actionable objections left to hold up this fine contribution's promotion to FA. Very well done, Christine. Thanks much for all your effort on this important subject. Keep up the great work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC) In progress ... more to come. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, waiting for it with great anticipation. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - (All points adressed) a nice, informative article on an unusual topic, but it might be slightly too positive at times, taking quotes and info from involved persons without further analysis or commentary from uninvolved, secondary sources. Some points after a first read:

I understand the concern. This is a forked article, from Sesame Street, created when I saw that there was enough information for its own article. It focuses on the research associated with the show, not with the criticism of it, which is better suited for Influence of Sesame Street (a GA). There is some mention of the "negative" studies of the show, but it didn't make a big difference. One of the main sources for this article, G is for Growing was published by the research department at CTW, but it summarizes the major studies they and the ETS conducted. Lesser's book, again published by advocates of SS and the CTW, summarizes the early studies. Morrow is probably the most secondary source available. There really hasn't been a lot of studies conducted on the show's efficacy by outside researchers; most of them have been done recently and the ones I could find I've included. I could, though, put some information here, which I'll recreate here and insert into this article if you recommend it:

The "most important" studies that found negative effects of Sesame Street were conducted by educator Herbert A. Sprigle and psychologist Thomas D. Cook during its first two seasons. Both studies found that the show increased the educational gap between poor and middle-class children. Morrow reported that these studies had little impact on the public discussion about Sesame Street.

Note: The rest of this paragraph and the one that follows it in the Influence article talks about the criticism of some prominent psychologists and policy makers, but IMO they constitute opinion and not the findings of studies.

She [journalist Kay Hymowitz, again opinion] reported that most of the positive research conducted on the show has been done by the CTW, and then sent to a sympathetic press. She charged that the studies conducted by the CTW "hint at advocacy masquerading as social science". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• lead "Co-creator Joan Ganz Cooney stated, "Without research, there would be no Sesame Street."" - this quote has a number of problems. It's a very poignant, subjective statement of an involved, biased creator - too "strong" for a lead intro. Literally reading the statement, it's also wrong - of course a Sesame Street show (of less quality and impact) would be possible completely without research. The rest of the paragraph elaborates on the relation between research and show, but doesn't really convey its importance. Suggestion: move that quote down to the main text, where you can provide more context to explain, why exactly research was so vital for the show.

Well, I don't know if I agree, but I'm not that committed to one quote, so I followed your suggestion and moved the quote down to the "The CTW model" section.

• "CTW researchers invented tools (such as "the distractor") ..." - without explanation, which may be too difficult for the lead, the parenthetical is useless here for most readers.

Ok, done; removed.

• "The producers changed the show and compiled a body of [objective] data based on their findings." - just reading the lead, this is confusing. Wouldn't the compiling be done by some researchers? "Objective" can be trimmed, all data is objective by definition (its statistical analysis may be tainted by subjective views or motivations).

Added phrase "and its researchers"; struck "objective".

• "The formative research on Sesame Street was the first time children's television viewing was studied scientifically." - needs citation for the "first time" part, even in lead.

Done.

• "Subsequent studies have replicated these findings." - could you add an example for a notable study here?

Sure, listed the studies discussed in the "Later studies" section. Will address the rest later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Background "According to writer David Borgenicht, other children's television shows were criticized for being cartoons depicting violence and reflecting commercial values." - the source for this critical statement is a book for "a celebration of the first thirty years of Sesame Street contains special interviews with the show's creators, behind-the-scenes glimpses the Sesame world, fun-filled quizzes, reviews of its funniest moments, unique photographs, and more" (WP:RS). Not having read this book, is it neutral and critical enough to trust such a broad statement?

Well, it's not as if the Unpaved book is a major source for this article. But like above, I'm not committed to using it, since there are better sources that basically say the same thing. Done as directed. The Unpaved book is used a few more times, but not for statements as "critical" as this one. Did you want me to change them as well?

• "Despite her lack of experience in education,[10] her study was well received." - Received by whom? I know, she is linked, but as one of the main "actors" it may be worth to add a brief description about her professional background somewhere near her first mention.

The source doesn't say who received it, so I just removed it and moved the "lack of experience" phrase to her short background as you suggest.

• "Curriculum seminars prior to Sesame Street's 33rd season in 2002 resulted in changes to the show's structure and format." - what changes? Can you add 1-2 examples?

Instead of using examples, I changed the wording slightly to clarify: "Curriculum seminars prior to Sesame Street's 33rd season in 2002 resulted in changing the show from a magazine-like format to a more narrative format." You can see that I linked the article that discusses the changed format.

• "Shortly after beginning Sesame Street, its creators developed what came to be called the "CTW model"" - Called by whom?

Again, unclear in the source, so I cut out the offending phrase.

• "Sesame Street researcher Rosemarie Truglio called it "a healthy tension", adding "I think the reason it works is that everyone who is a part of the model really, truly cares about children"" - Remove completely (NPOV, no encyclopedic content).

Ah, that makes me sad, 'cause it's a great quote. Plus, I'm not really sure why it would be unencyclopedic, but since I believe in accepting the feedback of my reviewers, I'm remove it, anyway.

• "...gains made by disadvantaged children were "at least as great"[57] as those by advantaged children" - why the quote marks? Seems like a common comparison, so just an inline-citation would be enough.
• Footnote 1 "Cooney later called the state of children's programming a "wasteland" at the time the show was created, a reference to FCC ..." - Full name and link for FCC needed.

Got previous two comments.

• Any critical voices about the CTW model? However minor, it would add to the article's overall balance, if some criticism was mentioned (only if notable of course).

Um, there really hasn't been any criticism of the procedures they follow in the model. No one has ever said, at least that I was able to find, that they're mistaken or misguided for using it. There is the fact that very few TV shows have adopted it, something that Morrow has discussed, but that's not really a criticism of their methodology. I don't believe that a simple description of what they did is unbalanced. There is mention of the producers' reluctance to follow it at first, though, but again, that's not really criticism.

Sorry, if some of those points were mentioned already, just noted them, while reading through. GermanJoe (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments by Evanh2008 - Great article, and the prose has much improved from the last time I looked at it. Very nice work, Christine! Just a few things, and I'll be ready to support:
• Why link PBS instead of Public Broadcasting Service if the latter is the name of the article?

Fixed.

• Try to avoid refs in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE.

The policy states that refs in the lead are determined on a case-by-case basis and by consensus. Re: ref 1, a previous reviewer wanted me to support the statement, and I've always been under the impression that you should cite quotations in the lead.

• Since the lead is meant to summarise the article, I would also avoid giving quotes in the lead that are not in the body of the article.

You're probably talking about the Cooney quote, which I moved to the body as per GermanJoe's review above.

• Regarding images, there are a handful of public-domain photos here, but, of course, none that are directly prurient to the research angle. There's also a CC-licensed image of Jim Henson, but I'm not sure that's a great choice either. At any rate, if you can find an image, that would be great, but it is not a condition for my support.

Yah, always a problem, and something I've thought a lot about. If it were a perfect world, and we had access to free images of them, I'd think that one of Cooney or a shot of the Sesame Workshop offices in the "Background and Development" section. I don't think that Henson would be a good choice. I've tried to add images of Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch, but other editors have rejected them. An image of Ed Palmer in the "Formative research" section might work, but there's nothing available.

Very, very minor issues now. Great job once again! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the feedback and kind words. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Great article, all problems now addressed, as far as I can tell! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - (above points adressed) some final remarks, but nothing withholding my support for this fine article.

• The "CTW model" "[They] then convened the experts in a series of meetings ..." - Subject changed previously, better specify, who is "They" here.
• Borgenicht as source - is OK for other usages (imo), only used for a direct quote and an uncontroversial fact, no need to replace the source there.
• Lead citations - are required for quotations, and OK/recommended for extraordinary claims.
• Critical voices - the only point, which probably needs a bit more discussion. I understand, this is a forked article and should not replicate everything. On the other hand it should be able to stand on its own and cover all aspects of its topic including critical voices, even if they overlap a bit with other Sesame Street articles. Suggest 1-2 brief mentions (similar to your examples above) of the most notable critical comments in the appropriate sections (separate "Criticism" is discouraged usually). If the general reaction was vastly positive, more is not needed anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the changes you recommend. I stated that the research was generally positive, and that most are unpublished. I also added a few criticisms from the Influence article as discussed above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Looks and reads more polished. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: I commented at the previous FAC, and this has improved since then. I have done some minor copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you don't like, or which I have messed up. I've just a few last questions or points to make, but nothing major. My biggest issue is the placement of the "negative comments", but it doesn't require much work and may just be a preference thing, so it does not affect my support. A very good job overall. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The producers changed the show and its researchers compiled a body of data based on their findings.": For flow, it may be better to begin "Based on these findings…". But there is a problem that the previous sentence says what the researchers did, and this sentence also says what the researchers did. What about "Based on these findings, the researchers compiled a body of data and the producers changed the show accordingly". (I'm assuming that the body of data was what the producers used?)

Fine with your suggestion; made the change.

• "Summative research conducted throughout Sesame Street's history, including two landmark evaluations in 1970 and 1971, demonstrated": Still not too keen on "history" in this sense, and I suspect that the phrase could be replaced with "over the years", "over the course of the program", or even omitted altogether. However, the research presumably still shows this, so perhaps it should be "demonstrates"?

It needs to demonstrate (har-har) that these studies occurred periodically throughout the period the show has aired, I think that "over the years" is a better choice, so that's what I inserted.

• "She researched their ideas about the viewing habits of young children, writing a report on her findings[8][9] entitled "Television for Preschool Education", which described out how television could be used as an aid in the education of preschoolers, especially those living in inner cities.": I think there may be a little too much going on here. Possibly could be split, but even replacing "writing" with "and wrote" may make it more digestible.

Keeping it simple, I chose to follow the latter suggestion.

• "The program's creative staff was concerned…": Is this "was" or "were"? I hate these! In the UK it would be "were". But I know these can be a minefield!

It's "was" in 'merican English, because the verb modifies "staff", which for us, is singular.

• "The most important studies that found negative effects of Sesame Street were conducted by educator Herbert A. Sprigle and psychologist Thomas D. Cook during its first two seasons. Both studies found that the show increased the educational gap between poor and middle-class children.": I'm not too clear on the focus here; is it saying that the most important studies found negative effects, or listing the main studies which found negative effects? And this "negative" section seems slightly tacked on, and may be better placed elsewhere, such as in the research sections.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Both studies found that the show negatively affected the gap between poor and middle-class children. How do you suggest that I change it? The negative section doesn't really fit anywhere else; they're early, so they don't belong in the "Later studies" section, and they weren't conducted by either the CTW or the ETS. Plus, they're more background info, I think.

Not a problem. I'm not too sure what I'm asking myself... Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure all the links are needed, for example efficacy or magazine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

These are issues that have been previously discussed. Another reviewer requested that "efficacy" be linked because it's a term about the effectiveness of something. "Magazine" is linked because it's another specific term that describes how information is presented, an important concept here.

Fair enough. Not too sure I agree, but not an issue for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the show used research to create the show" - awkward

How so? It's used as a noun here; not common usage, I know, but common in research literature. It's also the subject of the article. I suppose we could say: '...the show used concepts gained from research studies and experiments to..."

No, it's more the concept of the show creating the show that's a bit strange... Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it; thanks for the explanation. Added the word "producers" because you're right that a show can't use research but its producers can.

• "test its impact" and then "evaluate its impact" in consecutive sentences feels repetitive

I combined the two ideas into one sentence. By doing so, I might have solved the above issue.

• When full author names appear in text, be consistent in whether middle initial is punctuated

I'm having trouble finding this error? Could you please point it out?

For example, you've got "Louise A Gikow" (no period after A) and later "Shalom M. Fisch" (period after M). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah again! Got it.

• "They finally meetings"?

Oops, fixed. I have no idea how that got past us.

• "80—90 percent of the time" - wrong horizontal line, should be endash

Got it.

• Don't include quote-initial ellipses

Again, would you mind pointing that out?

"Malcolm Gladwell asserted, "... Without Ed Palmer"". When quoting like this it's clear there's material before and after in the source, so you don't need initial or terminal ellipses. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked, and this was the only instance. Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "children retained most of what learned" - missing word?

Oops again; see above. ;)

• "It solved this problem by selecting control-group households from areas that did not broadcast the show" - I'm not sure how US broadcasting works; would this be rural areas? Certain parts of the country? Depending on answer, did the studies take into account possible differences in early education or upbringing based on geography or demography?

Actually, at the time (the late 60s and early 70s), even some urban areas didn't get PBS because it was on UHF. I don't think that this is a place to explain that. I looked at the source, and found that it doesn't go into a lot of detail.

• "vocabulary, letter, and printed- and spoken-word identification" - "letter identification/recognition"?

A previous reviewer has worked with me about how to best put this concept, and that's what we came up with. All three items in the list are different.

• "and the on type of stimulus"? Also check use of stimulus vs stimuli throughout this para

Got it; good catch.

• FN6: formatting

Fixed, again thanks for the catch.

• FN30: why is this different from the other references to chapters from this book?

Because it's the only ref from the book. I'm treating G is for Growing as a compilation of articles, since that's really what it is. This is a common practice in citing sources.

• Gikow title includes doubled period. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. And thanks for the feedback and support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: This is fabulous work. I have only one question:

1. Why are some of the works referenced in the "Works Cited" while others (fn 27, 30, 70, 71) in the notes? Couldn't they be moved into the "Works Cited" and referenced the same way?

See my response to Nikkimaria above. It's a common way to handle sources from the same book.

1. Okay, make it two. "The evidence showed that attention span depended both on age and the on type of stimuli children viewed." I think there is a word missing here.

Wow, great catch. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on content. Since actual Sesame Street images are pretty much off the table, is there any chance of a photo of any of the key people in the article (for example Cooney, Palmer, or Lesser)? Is Shalom M. Fisch worth a redlink? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an image of Lesser at Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street, but notice that it's never been reviewed, which is probably why it's still there. There was an image of Cooney (can't remember which article, though) that came from the same source (SS's promotional reel), but it was rejected. I suspect that neither would be allowed here. There are no images available of Palmer. I can redlink Fisch if you like; I think he's notable enough for an article, something I'll probably get to eventually. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cooney has been fairly publicly visible over the years and is still alive, in fact. It's plausible that a free use photo of her might be out there somewhere. It might also be worth seeing if Harvard would permit use of the photo of Lesser that illustrated his obituary (or any other, really; he spent 35+ years as faculty there and they named a professorship after him, so I'm sure they've got a pile of them). I'll agree that there's not much chance of an acceptable photo of Palmer. Regardless, I certainly won't oppose for their lack; if they're possible, it's just a way that the article could be further improved post-FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've sent a letter and emails to Sesame Workshop, but received no answer from them. I'll see what I can do about this problem in the coming months, at least in regards to obtaining free images of Cooney and Lesser. I think that contacting Harvard is an excellent idea. Cooney's foundation might be able to help, too. I should also put Lloyd Morrisett on this list, and other people involved in SS and other Muppet projects. Working on these articles is a long-term project; there's so much that can be done, and I'm pretty much the only person who's seriously doing it. Mind you, I'm not complaining, since I kinda like the autonomy, control, and lack of drama that brings. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sesame Workshop itself is famously protective of its image rights, for admittedly good cause. I suspect you'll have better success contacting the educational institutions involved. The nice thing about this topic area is that it has such a universally positive reputation, and the people involved almost all had such long, distinguished, and drama-free careers, that it's likely much easier to convince the rights-holders to license than in more fraught areas. Best of luck with the article improvement in the rest of the topic area as well. You've got pretty close to an unlimited number of potential FAs out there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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