Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Workshop/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Sesame Workshop

edit
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 article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:28, 11 June 2014 [1].


Sesame Workshop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the organization responsible for the production of the children's show Sesame Street. It's actually a combination of two articles, the SW original article and Funding sources of Sesame Street, which merged with this article after I and a few editors decided that the content better fit here. I think that this article should pass mustard with the reviewers here, though. I look forward to the feedback. Enjoy! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Lead section

  • "most well-known" should be "best-known". The superlative form of the adverb well is best.

Singora (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
  • Image review (I expect to do a full review in due course):
  • File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg is non-free, and has no fair use rationale for this article (I doubt that a satisfactory one could be created, as well);
I removed the FUR for the deleted article, and put one for this article in place.
  • I have some concerns about File:Joan Ganz Cooney.JPG, which I am not convinced depicts a 55 year old woman, as claimed. While the links on the image's Commons page establish that it was published in 1985, I'm not sure that they establish that it was first published in 1985. However, even if it was first published prior to 1985, unless that publication included copyright notice, as I understand it it would now be in the public domain. Accordingly, I'm not opposing on this basis, but would welcome others' eyes.
I think I understand what you're saying. I've searched for pics of Cooney at the same time: it's hard to see her as clearly in this one from 1984 [2], but she looks almost as young; and there's this one from 1978 [3]. I don't have a problem with it; Cooney's always looked that great.
Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, neither support nor oppose for now:
  • I am confused by the article's organization - top level headings for each of "History", "Early years", and "Later years" seems inconsistent. Additionally, I'm not sure the "explanatory notes" are properly considered "references". Some of the material under "funding sources" doesn't seem to fit that heading - the "music" section specifically notes that musical rights were retained by the artists, so in what sense is music a "funding source" for the SW? Likewise, are licencing fees paid by the international co-productions? Conversely, the "Later years" section includes quite a lot of information about funding sources.
I'm not unopposed to changing the structure. One thing I can do is to make the "Early years" and "Later years" into second-level headings under "History". Would that suffice? I've put all the sections under "References" for other articles; if you like, I can make them all top-level sections, something else I've done. I've seen it happen both ways. Music is a funding source in the sense that as the article states, it attracts the best composers and brings attention to their shows by letting the writers earn royalties. The article quotes Davis saying just that. It was more of a PR move, especially since the CTW was a non-profit start-up at the time. I don't know how more clear I can make it. I can't recall any specific information about how they handle licensing with the co-productions, although I assume that the SW simply lets them use it. There's nothing in the literature that states that specifically, though. I tried to focus on acquisitions and what they sold off in the "Later years" section, to emphasize their ups and downs after the 1990s, so some of it got into some discussion about funding sources. I don't think I'm being repetitive, though.
  • I'm not sure that the article is currently sufficiently broad. For example, I can't find anything about the Workshop's corporate structure, number of employees, etc. In contrast, something like a third of the article is devoted to the organization's founding - I don't think that the level of detail on that subject is excessive, but I wonder if it could be balanced by additional detail in other areas?
Surprisingly, with all the information out there about Sesame Street, there's very little reliable sources about the SW's corporate structure. Cooney, during her interview by the Archive of American Television, gets into it some, but not a lot, because I think she senses that it's boring and not what people want to hear. I looked at the Workshop's webpage and there's nothing about what you're asking, other than lists of the executive board and trustees.
  • Another area in which I think detail may be lacking is the philosophy/mandate of the organization. For example, the article mentions that in 1998 the CW started accepting corporate funds - was this a shift in philosophy, or a grudging concession to budgetary realities?
The SW webpage includes their stated goals and their mission statement. Did you want me to include it? I did include more content about the reason they began to accept corporate sponsorship as per your request.
  • The "Leadership team" section does seem to include excessive detail. I won't die on that hill, but I don't think that the entire board of trustees needs to be listed in an article like this.
I added the list because that's what I saw in other similar articles. I'm not overly committed to it, either; I could just list the more "important" names, but who am I to judge that?
  • The sourcing appears excellent. While I'm obviously not an expert in this field, and therefore I couldn't say if there are any major sources that have not been used but should have been, this is clearly a well-researched article.
I'll provide more specific comments in due course (assuming engagement from the nominator on what I've said so far). Steve Smith (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I eagerly anticipate more feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "By summer 1970, Dann had made the first international agreements for what the CTW came to call "co-productions"" - source?
Done.
  • Why do some chapters from Fisch & Truglio use short cites and others full bibliographic info in citations?
Because it's my practice to treat these articles, which are from the "G" is for Growing book, as separate articles. If I cite an article from the book more than once, it gets listed as a short cite; if not, I list the full bibliographic info. This seems to be standard in references in books and journal articles, so that's what I tend to use.
  • Fn23: don't need italics
Got it.
  • Compare FNs 29 and 30
They're different sources, but they look like the same because I missed the year from Cooney's foreword in Lesser's book. (Heck, if you write a book about Sesame Street, you gotta get her to write your foreword!) ;)
  • FN78: page?
Huh? Are you talking about the Cole ref? The page number is there, right before the ISBN like it's supposed to be.
No, it's now FN80, the Carvajal NYT ref. (And why does it have a retrieval date with no URL?) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The URL went missing; fixed now. Thanks for the catch.
  • Mahwah or Mahweh?
Mahweh, fixed typo.
According to the APA [4], the accurate usage is without the comma.
Cool, now let's do it ;-) (compare FNs 106 and 111). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the second instance.

Thanks again for your attention to detail. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got the above fixes, thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

their first ten years of existence was marked by conflicts between the CTW and the federal government some repetitive words with the previous clause, would be good if could be rephrased. maybe just "between the two"?
Done as per your suggestion.
Is the chronology of paras 2 and 3 in the Funding sources section a bit muddled? Not sure when events of beginning of para 3 are taking place but sound like they predate "By 2008, the Sesame Street Muppets accounted for between $15 million and $17 million per year in licensing and merchandising fees, split between the Workshop and Henson Associates"
I see your point. I switched the paragraphs; is that enough?
Hmmm, not sure - the first few sentences of (what is now) para 2 have no dates, can we get some idea of when these events occurred into the article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I've done works because para 2 describes practices the Workshop followed throughout their history, except for the last few sentences, which include dates (the early 1970s). I changed the wording slightly to better reflect it, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but was eventually replaced by Bill Whaley. - not contrastive, should be "and" (?)
Done, thanks.
Surely segments early years and later years should be level 3 subheaders under history?
Yeah, that's what we were talking about above. Since you're the second reviewer to suggest it, it will be done.
Director Jon Stone stated, about the music of Sesame Street, "There was no other sound like it on television". - sentence is clumsy with quotes, and quote is not in and of itself memorable, so I would rewrite - something like "Director Jon Stone claimed the music of Sesame Street was unique on television/ was unlike any other on television". or somesuch
I like that word, "somesuch". I will steal it from you, my friend! ;) Done as you suggest.
I'm not sure the leadership team is an essential part of the article..I think I'd cut it. Or maybe just mention the one or two most senior people, which I think are already mentioned...?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a repeat request, so done. I wonder, though, if we can put the "Senior management" list in prose form in the "Later years" subsection, and mention a few of the board members? I'll go ahead and do it and see what y'all think.

Thanks, I await more from you and others. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Another superior effort by a top-notch editor. But I have some comments to prove that I read it all:
    • The 2008–2009 recession, which led to budget cuts for many nonprofit arts organizations, severely affected the SW; in spring 2009, they had to lay off 20% of its staff Pronoun confusion: they versus its; should be it had to lay off 20% of its staff. Per MOS:SEASON, it would be better to avoid the idiom "spring 2009". The same in the sentence starting with "Spring 2013", when you say "they" but mean "it".
Fixed the seasons, and then I went through and fixed all the pronouns as per your request.
    • the show gained attention from marketers who wanted to take advantage of it. The Workshop explored other sources This reads oddly, because it goes on to talk about merchandising. On reflection, the problem with the paragraph seems to be that we are not told what the marketers were suggesting. (Aside: the US government's opposition to free speech is very interesting.)
Not sure what you mean about free speech. This is what I did the the sentences in question; hope it's okay: "For the first time, a public broadcasting show had the potential to earn a great deal of money. Immediately after its premiere, Sesame Street gained attention from marketers, so the Workshop explored sources such as licensing arrangements, publishing, and international sales, and became, as Cooney envisioned, a "multiple media institution"."
In my country, we draw a very stark line between commercial speech and free speech. So "the government's attacks on PBS" will be read as part of a campaign against freedom of speech. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider moving explanatory note 2 into the text, as it is not a digression. Also, it reads awkwardly for some reason I can't put my finger on.
Done. Changed sentence; hopefully, this is better: "Three international parks, Parque Plaza Sesamo in Monterrey, Mexico since 1995, Universal Studios Japan, and Vila Sesamo Kids' Land in Brazil had already been built."
Yes, that sounds much better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best of luck with the Wikicup this year.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, best of luck to you as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not participating this year. It was too tough for me. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support. A characteristically well and confidently written article on an important subject, excellently organized and formatted. However I'm thinking the prose could use a final once-over to eliminate a tendency to longish, comma-filled sentences. :) Attention might also be paid to bundling the inline citations to the ends of sentences for improved readability. Further, I'm a bit concerned that, while it is an impressive surface overview of the organization's history, goals and accomplishments, the article is noticeably lacking in more specific details of its inner workings, in particular various creative decisions. Shoebox2 talk 15:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the prose again to deal with the long sentences and the citations as per your request, after I finish dealing with the issues below. As far as the "specific details" are concerned, I see that you have some questions about a few of the Workshop's creative decisions, so I'll address them below. However, as I've stated before, there is surprisingly little information available about the motivations for many of their creative decisions for projects other than Sesame Street. I've included what I was able to find. There's also little information about the Workshop's "inner workings", although I did find a book about Morrissett and his role in the CTW and the Markle Foundation. (Morrissett was director of Markle during and after SS' development and premiere.) I'll add the information I glean from this source tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed adding info from the new source. It addressed some of the issues below, which I'll note as I go through them. I should be able to take care of it, if not this afternoon, definitely by tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific issues I've noted:

    • "Cooney was committed to using television to change the world..." --Not fatally vague given the surrounding details re: her career, but still an unnecessarily meaningless cliche. How about something like "...committed to television as an instrument for sociological [or whatever other, more specific concept] change..."
Sorry, but I think your version is just as much of a cliche. This is what I came up with, hope it's better: "...committed to using television to change society..."
    • "Founding" -- A more indepth discussion of how the division of responsibilities between Cooney and Morrisett came about (and how Cooney eventually came to take the lead on the whole project) would be helpful, esp. as the preceding section gives the distinct impression that early childhood education and research was Morrisett's particular specialty.
Well, not really; his expertise was fund-raising and getting foundations involved. I think that my additions from the Markle book help address this issue.
    • I realise this isn't actually the story of how Sesame Street was developed, but shouldn't the circs under which Jim Henson (until then best-known for very adult, anarchistic sensibilities) was persuaded to throw in with this fledgling children's educational non-profit rate at least a mention?
Um, not really. Don't get me wrong; I admire Henson. He's always been one of my personal heroes. However, I think that he gets too much credit for the creation and development of both The Show and the Workshop. He was hugely influential in the creative part of Sesame Street, and that's covered in its article, but he had very little to do with the creation and development of the CTW. He made an arrangement with the CTW for licensing of the characters, and that's described in this article. So I disagree with this suggestion, since it doesn't parallel the facts and what happened. BTW, one of my long-term WP goals is to improve Henson's bio article, which I anticipate will be a huge undertaking, but a real need.
    • "Although Cooney, due to her professional experience, always assumed the natural home for the show was PBS, Morrisett was open to airing the show on commercial television, but all three networks rejected the idea." -- Awkward and overlong. How about: "Due to her professional experience, Cooney always assumed the show's natural home would be PBS. Morrisett was open to airing it on commercial stations, but all three networks rejected the idea."
Done.
    • "At first, Cooney did not fight for the position, but with the support of Tim Cooney and Morrisett, and after the investors of the project realized that they could not move forward without her, Cooney pursued it and was named the first executive director of CTW in February 1968." -- Again, awkward. How about: "At first, Cooney did not fight for the position. However she had the support of her husband and Morrisett, and the project's investors soon realized they could not go forward without her. She was eventually named to the post in February 1968."
Got it.
    • "Dave Connell took over animation and volume..." -- Possibly my unique ignorance only, but what does 'volume' mean in this context? Would 'sound' get the idea across better?
Wow, the word "production" was missing; I have no idea how that happened, honestly.
    • "Early years": The leap from a sole and sincere (not to say hyper-intensive) focus on children's educational TV to experimenting with adult programming happens wholly without explanation?
Good point. I went back to Cooney's interview with the Archives of American TV and added her explanation.
    • "Funding sources": The timeline of the first paragraph re: Federal funding is slightly confusing; not sure how Cooney's statement that they were 'darlings' for two-three years meshes with the assertion of an initial ten years of constant conflict.
Well, actually, the statement starts with the word "although", which infers their rocky relationship. I would like to keep this as is.
    • "Music": "Cooney observed in her initial report that children had an "affinity for commercial jingles", so many of the show's songs were constructed like television ads." -- Besides the fact that 'constructed like television ads' doesn't have much practical meaning (there isn't one particular way to make a commercial), as I understand it the core concept of structuring SS to mimic then-current marketing trends was a keystone of the entire CTW's children's television revolution. Thus possibly deserving more of a spotlight, maybe in the description of the intitial R&D under 'Founding'?
The language used here parallels the source. This section, along with some others, summarizes forked articles; in this case, Music of Sesame Street. I think what you're asking better belongs in that article, and in the main article. Plus, I've never read any source that puts it like that.
    • "International co-productions": "Dann's appointment resulted in television critic Marvin Kitman, referring to the May 1970 Mississippi state commission decision to ban the show, to state..." Awkward, and ungrammatical. How about: "In response to Dann's appointment, television critic Marvin Kitman said that "[quote]", a reference to the May 1970 Mississippi state commission decision to ban the show."
Done.

Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've addressed all your comments, Shoe. Thanks for putting this article over the edge. And thanks for the promotion, which occurred before I addressed Shoe's comments. I'll do another copy-edit in a couple of days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sesame_Workshop/archive1&oldid=1166570453"