Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

GA discussion

My main concern with this article continues to be the main concern I raised at the FAC - this doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It tells an interesting story about an encyclopedic topic, but too much of the article reads like a story, and that's problematic.

Besides that, a quick copyedit would be helpful and I'd do a little more citing, as a lot of people would consider this article undercited at the moment. They're fixable issues, but they're still issues.

Good luck. --13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)

I've failed this for GA, as there has been no response to the questions raised for over seven days. Please feel free to resubmit the article for GA if/when the issues have been addressed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have since asked Badlydrawnjeff for clarification on his earlier comments, in particular, citation. -- Zanimum 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not at the present time. Article is formatted almost exactly like Muppet Wikia, which reads more like a fan Website description with some sources, and not an encyclopedic article. Way too much usage of {{cquote}}, cut this down to simply regular quotes "" - and maybe retain one usage of {{cquote}}, if you really feel you wish to highlight something.

2. Factually accurate?: Seems to be pretty good, but please go back and reformat the rest of the cites with WP:CIT. It's not required, but since you already used it for some of them, just keep citing uniformity in the rest of the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: Test results moves right into "The final episode addressed the advisors' concerns via a conversation in which..." - but what about the main plot of the episode itself? If this was not developed fully, please explain and source that in the article.

4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written with a neutral point of view.

5. Article stability? Article appears to be stable, no edit wars in the edit history or incivility on the talk page.

6. Images?: Lacking images. A previous reviewer also asked - but couldn't you use some screenshots? If there are no relevant free-use screenshots of Snuffy or some other related image, try to make a detailed fair use rationale case for a fair use screenshot.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please message my talk page after the above has been addressed, and I will reevaluate. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: picture for the article

Reply in progress:

6. I thought we were to avoid using fair use images at all costs, only if they were necessary to understand the concepts relayed in the article. It's not necessary to know what a Snuffleupagus looks like, to understand that they're getting divorced, is it? The only free images of Sesame Street that exist are of Bob McGrath, who indeed does comment in the article (that comment could have been from anyone so a picture would be decorative at most), of the Oscar the Grouch puppet at the Smithsonian (the character is mentioned as being star of the replacement episode, but again, an image would be mostly decorative), and of a new character, introduced season 36 (2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the particular reviewer of this article, but one (and only one) free use image of this article would be acceptable to use in the infobox. Preferably, it should be something that very clearly elucidates an important part of this episode (a screen shot of a crucial plot point for example). Cheers, CP 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the episode never aired and has never been released, either in whole, as a leaked bootleg, in the Museum of Television and Radio or even as clips in one of the 5 or more documentaries on Sesame Street. It does not exist anywhere, except for the private collection of Sesame Workshop. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed GAC

I'm sorry, but it has been well over seven days and my above points were not really addressed, and no one messaged my talk page. Feel free to take my above suggestions into account, and continue to improve the state of this article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Confused about the planned airdate

I'm confused by the assertion that this episode, originally slated to be #2895, was to air on April 10, 1992. That doesn't seem to match with Sesame Street's old production and airing schedule. I happen to have the episode that ended up being #2985 instead (the Oscar the Grouch story mentioned in the article). Based on the airing schedule Sesame Street used to have, it would have aired no later than January 1992, but more likely late December 1991.

Seasons 1-29 had 130 hours each. (Except the second season, which for some reason had 145.) Knowing that the premiere aired on Monday, November 10, 1969, and that every season lasted 26 weeks, was repeated once, then was replaced by another six-month season, it's easy to estimate within a fairly small margin of error when the airdate for any random show would have been (up until #3786, when the production and airing schedule was changed).

Therefore, I'm confused how #2895 could have originally been slated to air as late as April 1992, since by the beginning of that month, the numbers would have been in the 2970's.

I've just talked to a writer on Muppet Wiki, and he's provided me with the references for both the airdate and episode number. The number is in an educational study by a current Sesame Workshop exec, and the airdate is in both U.S. News & World Report and the Herald Sun. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

airdate

User:Newbie27 is adding this link as a source that this episode aired on KQED. I'm not seeing anything that supports this claim on that site. Her/His note says to see the April 1992 listing, but that archive only goes back to Jan 31, 2000. Am I missing something? —scarecroe (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, as far as I can tell. Seeing that this isn't their only series of disruptive edits, I've warned this user on their talk page that they may be banned for two weeks if they continue. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See [1] for information. Newbie27 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some random fan having a memory about what s/he may or may not have dreamed/seen on TV does not constitute as a verifiable source. —scarecroe (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See also the KQED San Francisco website's episode archives for more information. Newbie27 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Can you provide a link please? —scarecroe (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So, back to my original point, that link has nothing to do with proving that this episode aired. —scarecroe (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look in broadcast archives for April 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 March 2008

Please read the first post in this thread. —scarecroe (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

KQED Public Television keeps an archives of all their programs, going all the way back to the station debut in 1954. An online version of the station's extensive program schedules is accessible through the KQED website. View the April 10, 1992 station listing for more information on this episode. If you are having problems locating or accessing information within the archives, you may consult the station's viewer services at (415) 553-2135 for live assistance available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm or via email at tv@kqed.org. The station can provide you with any information of their past programs, children's programming efforts and broadcast history upon request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Sesame Street database on this site started on Mon, Jan 3, 2000 -- 8:30 AM. http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=6510&date=20000101

The first date on the site in terms of a whole day's schedule, appears to be even more recent, August 1, 2003. http://www.kqed.org/tv/schedules/index.jsp?Month=8&Date=1&Year=2003&Format=long -- Zanimum (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review

I am quick failing the article per the Quick fail criteria, the article has too many {{fact}} tags which means there's too much original research. I also see some style problems, like years and common words (death, birth) wikilinked, so I think it's better if you take a closer look to What is a Good Article? before renominating. When it comes to the picture problem, why not just add some random sesame street pictures with a fair use rationale? Happy editing! --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes for GA reviewers

Okay, there are now no {{fact}} tags. Years have been unlinked, except for the main two years, which both link to the Years in television series of articles. May I note that links to common words like death are because the concepts were discussed on the series. Yes, people know what the terms are, but the MOS rule against linking to the article is because they don't want this sort of link "(d. 1962)". Anyway, hope these notes are a good note for another reviewer to give it a go. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note:

• there are no screen shots of this episode, as it has never been released, or even previewed in news footage,
• there are no free license images relevant to this article, the only

Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, "As a result, producers filmed an episode "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce"[2]", the comma should come before the source.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, it would be best if "Sesame Street" was linked once, per here. In the Test results section, "Staff writer Norman Stiles was assigned to the script, which the Children's Television Workshop scheduled to air 10 April 1992", since the article is not international, you might want to fix the date setting, per here. Same section, link "Big Bird" once. Same section, italicize "Sesame Street News Flash", per here.

   Half-check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References 8, 11, 12, and 14 are dead links. In the Test results section, "The final episode addressed the advisors' concerns via a conversation in which Gordon reassures Elmo, Big Bird, and Telly that "Just because parents have an argument, or get upset with each other, doesn't mean they're getting a divorce... Or that they don't love each other anymore." He also reassured Snuffy and his sister Alice that it's not their fault, "No, not even if you spill something", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here and here. The link titles in References 8, 11, 12, and 14 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here. Also, Reference 23 needs Publisher info., accessdate, etc.

   Half-check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 16 cover all this ---> "Not everyone in the production shared Stone's interest. Executive producer Dulcy Singer vetoed the idea in 1990, before it reached development. While she felt complex social matters should be discussed on the series, she felt the issue was irrelevant to lower socio-economic groups; the initial target audience of Sesame Street was inner city and financially disadvantaged families"? If so, it might be best to add the source next to the statement.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a second opinion. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Overall, the article looks good. It's nicely sourced and written. However, I have some concerns.

- Is the lead supposed to have that many citations in it? I guess considering the subject matter, and the way it's presented, this could be an exception.

- Some paragraphs have only one sentence. Are you unable to combine them into other paragraphs?

Those are my concerns with the article. Otherwise, it looks great! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion between ThinkBlue and I

We will put this article on hold for seven days. After my concerns are addressed, we ask that you send us a message on our talkpages. Then we will most surely pass this article. Thanks, good work and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have one concern. Reference 23 is missing Publisher info., an accessdate, date, etc. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The seven days have been up, and with consultation with CarpetCrawler, I've decided to fail the article. If the one comment above can be addressed, then the article may be renominated for GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 16:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give reviewing this a shot, different enough from my usual reviewing that it should be interesting. Wizardman 16:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• The last reference doesn't seem reliable since it's just to Wikia; find a different one and make sure the data is all there.
• Is there a way to tweak the lead? There are far too many references in it. I know some are unavoidable, but you should have zero difficulty cutting them in half here.
• For that matter, the second para in the lead isn't part of the body text at all, so there is a summary style issue here.

The body of the article is fine, if slightly quote-heavy. Just retool the needed part and I'll pass it. Wizardman 04:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a week and there's been no acknowledgement of anything, so I'm failing this. If this is addressed let me know and I can pass it next time. Wizardman 23:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs

Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think that this article needs to be completely re-vamped. Since 2007, it's been through one FAC and 5 GACs, the most recent one in January of this year, and all have failed, for good reasons. The last GAC failed because the nominator failed to follow through, which I think is fortunate because the reviewer seemed ready to pass the article. If it was passed at that time, I would've gone on the record opposing, even though I've written most of the Sesame Street articles on WP and I have a vested interest in these articles getting through reviews. The biggest problem with this article isn't the prose or the structure, it's the fact that it's pretty much parallels Muppet Wiki, almost to the point that it plagiarizes it.

Don't get me wrong; I love Muppet Wiki, and use it all the time. It's a wonderful resource, but one of my personal goals for articles about Sesame Street on WP is that they become more academic, and that's not the purpose of Muppet Wiki. I think that it's a good starting point, but this article here needs to be better sourced and better written. That certainly isn't true about the current version, and I'd like to change that. There has been a lot written about this episode in the literature, especially since the SW made the resource kit about divorce in 2012. [3] It's also important enough for it to have a high-quality article. (On a side note, I'd like to create an article about Mr. Hooper's death, but I'm not sure that there's enough information to warrant it.)

For those reasons, I believe that we should completely re-vamp this article, meaning that it needs a complete overhaul and re-write. Much of the current content should be used, but we should use different sources. I'd like to take it on, but because I'm somewhat certain that this article has many watchers, I wanted to see what the consensus was before I started. Please discuss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Muppet News Flash: As per the above, I've spent some time working on improving this article. See this sandbox: [4]. Of course, I need to do some formatting and work on the references. All concerned parties, please go to the sandbox and tell me what you think. I wanted to get input before I put what I've done in userspace.

In other news, I think that the Hooper episode has potential to become its own article. There's a lot more information about it than this one, so I've put it on my list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Now finished and will submit for both DYK and GA. I think that this article is much improved. Sad subject, but interesting and I must admit, fun to work on. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Various notes

• "Different trees": Thanks for working on this article. That said, it's inaccurate to suggest that the Little Children, Big Challenges: Divorce DVD was the first segment. The "different trees" segment was the first, back in the 1980s. http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bird_Family

The first references I've been able to find are these:

http://www.mypadivorcelawyer.com/Divorce-Law-Blog/2013/February/Sesame-Street-Helps-With-Uncontested-Divorce.aspx

http://www.womansday.com/sex-relationships/divorce-diaries/the-sesame-street-episode-your-kids-will-never-see-15220

... but the fact that the DVD reused "The Bird Family" song in the special is also relevant. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this info, Zan. I don't think I should use the webpages, since they say the same thing that other, more reliable sources already state. Question: What page from the Gikow book is this from? [5] I wasn't able to find it in my copy. Once I have the page number, I can add some of the info from it here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Image choice Why did you choose a generic fair use publicity shot of Snuffy? Given that any illustration for this article would be fair use, why not the screen shot from the episode, published in 40 Years?
• Episode number It probably should be noted that #2895 was used for another episode altogether. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for answers for this, and then was reminded about these questions during the GA review below. The image is chosen because although the one here is a screenshot, I don't think that using another screenshot from the episode would pass. I suspect that if this article were submitted to FAC (which I wouldn't, since I think it's too short), it wouldn't pass. In the most recent GAC, the reviewer mentioned it but didn't direct me to remove it, so I don't want to push my luck. Re: the episode number, I added the word "intended" in parenthesis.

I don't feel right about including the Bird Family info to this article until I get reliable sources to back it up. I don't think that the Woman's Day source is satisfactory, especially with its tone and the fact that you can tell they got their information from Muppet Wiki. I've figured out that the screenshot from Muppet Wiki was taken from the 40 Years DVD, but I still need the page number and the accurate sourcing before I can add it here, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Background "Sesame Street has had a history of ... and that was the case for "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce"." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Development "The show's producers had expressed a desire to ... reviewed by the Children's Television Workshop's (CTW) advisory board, content experts, and developmental psychologists." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 3: Test results "After tests showed that their young viewers were ... despite the costs." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 4: Legacy "Sesame Street did not address ... which featured the Muppet Abby Cadabby." (not a concise summary of the Legacy section) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Background "Sesame Street has had a history of ... and that was the case for "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce"." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Development "The show's producers had expressed a desire to ... reviewed by the Children's Television Workshop's (CTW) advisory board, content experts, and developmental psychologists." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Test results "After tests showed that their young viewers were ... despite the costs." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Legacy "Sesame Street did not address ... which featured the Muppet Abby Cadabby." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done ""Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce" is an episode of the children's television program Sesame Street." good (Definition is established (WP:BETTER)) "Produced in 1992, it never aired because tests showed several unintended negative effects." good (Notability is established (WP:BETTER)) Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***): None Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

WP:BLP:

NA Check for WP:BLP: NA Check for Writing style (WP:BLPSTYLE): Check for Tone: Check for Balance (WP:COAT): Check for Reliable sources: Check for Challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES): Check for Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material (WP:GRAPEVINE): Check for Avoid gossip and feedback loops (WP:BLPGOSSIP): Check for Avoid misuse of primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY): Check for Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS): Check for Further reading, external links, and see also (WP:BLPEL): Check for Presumption in favor of privacy: Check for Avoid victimization (WP:AVOIDVICTIM): Check for Public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE): Check for Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (WP:DOB): Check for People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF): Check for Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E): Check for Persons accused of crime[ (WP:BLPCRIME): Check for Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent Thorough check using Google.

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Borgenicht, David. (New York: Hyperion Publishing) Davis, Michael. (New York: Viking Penguin) Gikow, Louise A. (New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers) Morrow, Robert W. (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press) Truglio, Rosemary T. et al. (Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers) Guernsey, Lisa (Newsweek) Muriel, Cohen (The Boston Globe). Alaton, Salam (The Globe and Mail (Thomson Group)) (The Herald Sun) Newman, Richard J. (U.S. News & World Report) Hanes, Stephanie (The Christian Science Monitor) The Advertiser (News Corporation) Hartford, Courant (The Gazette (Montreal)) Dawidziak, Mark (Cleveland Plain Dealer) Walters, Laurel Shaper (The Christian Science Monitor) West, Abby (Entertainment Weekly) Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done New York: Hyperion Publishing New York: Viking Penguin New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers Newsweek The Boston Globe The Globe and Mail (Thomson Group) The Herald Sun U.S. News & World Report The Christian Science Monitor News Corporation The Gazette (Montreal) Cleveland Plain Dealer The Christian Science Monitor Entertainment Weekly Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:

Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done "listening to the voices of children and by putting their needs first",[1] "extensive research and planning".[4] "poignant",[8] "Davis called it "a landmark broadcast"[9] "a truly memorable episode, one of the show's best".[10] "My two projects for this year are drugs and divorce. Divorce is a difficult one. Perhaps we could do it with puppets. I am also writing a script on drugs and peer pressure".[15] "divorce is a middle-class thing," ... [16] "We were really nervous about the show, and we didn't think it was a shoo-in. When you're dealing with something like death, the approach can be universal. But with divorce, it's so personal. People react differently."[17] (Random check on source 17, inaccessible, check on Google, query source "'D' Won't Do for Divorce.", 0 results, query quote "But with divorce, it's so personal. People react differently", 10 results, this quote is used in another RS (The Baltimore Sun, title: After preview, 'Sesame Street' cancels a show on divorce) in the context of 'Sesame Street', so check is roughly successful ) "We hope to get to it by the end of the season. It always takes us a while to figure out how to do an issue appropriately, from a child's point of view".[20] "Now we delve into things like divorce that are likely to affect small children very heavily. We didn't touch those things before".[22] "about how Snuffy will have good homes, and so on and so on".[19] "it bombed".[19] "The kids came away with negative messages ... The kids misunderstood arguments. They said arguments did mean divorce. Some thought Snuffy's parents were moving away even though we said just the opposite. A number said the parents would no longer be in love with them".[17] "They wrote a whole show and taped it, and it was just devastating for test groups of kids. So they just threw the whole thing in the garbage and never tried it again. It was just too difficult a concept for a 3-year-old".[23] "back to the drawing board" ... [25] "We ate the cost and never aired it. We feel there are a range of issues that we can deal with in the family that do not go to the extreme of divorce".[25] "listening to the voices of children and by putting their needs first",[1] Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Major sources are not accessible. It's difficult to assess the article scope thoroughly. Rough check in parallel with criteria 2. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Difficult to check. Random check using Google and ISBN. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with valid FUR)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Lead Image (Snuffy31.jpg): This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots (1) for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents, and (2) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. Check for copyright status:  Done (Non-free content) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done (Yes) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done (valid) Source (WP:NFCC#4): Screenshot from the TV show Use in article (WP:NFCC#7): Aloysius Snuffleupagus Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8): To illustrate the character. Replaceable?: Since he is a copyrighted character, there are no free alternatives available. 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Relevant to the article Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Appropriate & Representative Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done Caption - The Muppet Mr. Snuffleupagus ("Snuffy"). succinct and informative

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

• The major point Legacy in the lead is not a concise summary of the Legacy section in the body.
• The lead does not give relative emphasis to the major point Legacy as is given in the body.
• Can you please check once more that the inline citations are correctly placed against the content they cite, because the sources are inaccessible to me?

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All the concerns above have been addressed, including checking that all the sources are accurate. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)