Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sesame Street Muppets/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:26, 4 May 2015 [1].

List of Sesame Street Muppets edit

List of Sesame Street Muppets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a well-sourced, as-comprehensive-as-possible list. Note to reviewers: this list is strictly sourced. Everything is supported by reliable sources; if no RS were found for any aspect of any character, it wasn't included. OR was also excluded. The result is that not every Muppet character that's appeared on Sesame Street is listed here. (Not that it would be possible, anyway.) Regarding images: Sesame Workshop is notoriously protective of its images, and rightly so, so very few images (just one, of Jim Henson) have been included. As the nominator and main editor of this list, I've made the executive decision to not include the few character images that are available, and leave them for individual character bio articles, if they exist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aaron
Comments from Aaron

Quite a lot of the "Actor/Muppet performer" names haven't got a source, and quite a lot are blank. Is there a reason for this? It just looks like it isn't completed yet. Also, I don't see the need to have empty section for V, W and Y when there is nothing to fill them.  — ₳aron 18:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a lot of the tables are different widths. I appreciate some have photos next to them which makes them not as wide, but I would force all tables to be the same width. I think that the article as a whole generally looks like it still needs work and looks a bit messy if I'm being completely honest. These are structure and formatting issues that I have highlighted, I haven't actually looked at the lead or references yet. I don't think this list best represents what it means to be an FL at this moment, and I think it needs more work. I'm afraid I'll be opposing because I think that this nomination is a premature.  — ₳aron 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC) *Oppose  — ₳aron 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron: I've made some changes that might make this less, as you say, messy. I put the refs in another column, except with direct quotes, of course. I put the images on the top of each letter's table, and forced all the table sizes to be the same size. As for the blank cells, what you suggest, filling them with "unknown" or "n/a"? Let me know; I'm happy to oblige, since this is all about improving lists. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you really can't fill the blank spaces with prose or info, then yes those templates would be well placed there. Having the pictures above the table really doesn't work. You can force the Description to be a certain width by coding it. List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande makes use of this coding to make the columns a certain width.  — ₳aron 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering a single table like on List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff would be better? That way it would be easier to sort names etc and would generally look a lot cleaner and simpler. At the moment, it's just a load of tables. It wouldn't be that hard to make it one table, either.  — ₳aron 19:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a lot about this, and then came to the conclusion that I need to follow your suggestion. Which I did, done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks so much better. I think now though you need a content table with A, B, C etc. Look at List of songs recorded by Cheryl Cole and you will see the table. And then click edit on that page, and look at how you would use {{anchor|A}} so that people could go straight to L or T or example, for ease of access and navigation. That will garner my support.  — ₳aron 09:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Calvin999: all done. Thanks, especially for teaching me new stuff about tables. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not quite. Because when you click A, B C, etc., nothing happens. If someone's name is John Smith, you need to place {{anchor|J}} before his name, then if you click J, it will take you straight to J. I'll do 'A' as an example, but without doing this, then there's no point having the alphabetical content table.  — ₳aron 09:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I'm acting like such a newbie about these tables! It's obvious that's not where my expertise lies, so I appreciate your patience with me. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose per Calvin999's comments, and "Actor/Muppet performer" is probably better titled "puppeteer". Frank Oz and Kevin Clash are probably worth adding if including images of puppeteers. I suggest withdrawal as this looks like an incomplete list and thus a premature nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address both of the above, since they bring up the same issues.

  • Not all the performers are puppeteers; for example, Roosevelt Franklin was voiced by one actor (Matt Robinson) and puppeteered by another. The same is also true about Roosevelt Franklin's Mother (next entry), who was voiced by Loretta Long. We could change the heading to "Performer".
  • The entries in the "Actor/Muppet performer" column are supported by sources in other parts of the table; for example, Alistair Cookie was performed by Frank Oz, which is supported by ref17. I did it this way to prevent WP:OVERCITE. If you like, I could include citations after each entry. The empty spaces exist because there was no reliable sources that name the performer. Now, understand that sources like Muppet Wiki (which isn't a reliable source because as great as it is, its content is user-generated) include the performers, but even an extensive search failed to illuminate a reliable source that supported it.
    • It wouldn't be overciting, because they aren't cited in the first place. All information should be visibly sourced.  — ₳aron 09:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain that this list is as comprehensive and complete as the sources allow, which is the reason for the dynamic list template at the top. It's impossible to include every Muppet character that has appeared on Sesame Street, but I maintain that the current version of this list is accurate and well-supported.
  • I've removed the empty tables as per Aaron's suggestion. I'm also willing to include images of puppeteers (not just Oz and Clash), and will do so next. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS: I believe that I've addressed all your comments now. The refs and table are now formatted in the way you requested. Please let me know if they're acceptable, and if there's anything else you want me to address. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are all different widths. If it was me, I'd force all the widths to be the same, using which ever table has the widest for each column as the rule of thumb. It just makes it look more uniformed.  — ₳aron 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the image captions are just "*name* in *year*"..... not very informative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999:, the code in the tables is identical. It looks different with the tables with images because the images force the tables' shorter width. I can see two possible solutions. I can place the images either at the beginning or the end of the tables, which I tried and you directed me to put them on the right side. Or I could force the widths in all the tables to look the same, even in the imageless tables. I support leaving them as is; forcing the widths would leave too much white space. @SNUGGUMS: I have done as you asked regarding the image captions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better, though I'd remove the years and add a pic of Kevin Clash. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I respectfully disagree. The years need to remain because we need to know when the pics were taken, which is a common practice with captions. And sorry, but I can't add an image of Clash, because there aren't any free ones available. If there is and I'm misinterpreting it as non-free, please point it out to me. And why Clash? I mean, yes, he's an important puppeteer in the history of Sesame Street, but he isn't even a current one. I wish I could find a free image of Jerry Nelson, or Richard Hunt, or Fran Brill. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Others are also fine to add, but yes- I recommend adding Clash because of his prominence as Elmo. You can use File:Kevin Clash Elmo 2010 (cropped).jpg. As for years in captions, why not use years puppeteers portrayed the puppets instead of years photos were taken? See List of The Simpsons cast members for an example. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, gotcha. Changes done as per your suggestions, @Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS:. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting there. Here are my concerns regarding references:
  • "Sesame Street.org" shouldn't be italicized, and remove the ".org". No need to have this and "Sesame Workshop" within the same ref.
  • "The New York Times Magazine" → The New York Times
  • Remove "Magazine" from "Spin Magazine"
  • Not sure if "How Stuff Works" or "Parenthood.com" are food sources to use
Well done with the captions, BTW :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: done all you suggest. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one instance of "Sesame Street.org"; FN43 still has italics where it shouldn't. CBS News and CBC News should not have italics either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I did a slight fix per WP:CONTRACTIONS, and now support since I can't see any other problems. Let's see what Calvin999 thinks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I understand that it is impossible to account for every muppet and puppeteer on the series since the people at Sesame Street are lousy record keepers of production of the show. Also, they hardly release stuff beyond their main characters to the public. However, it's well organized and cited list. Keep up the good work!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Birdienest: I support your "Support", but your comments are incorrect. Sesame Workshop has an extensive archives, and probably any unnamed Muppet used for one segment in the 1970s has a credit. It's simply that we don't have access to these records. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True-dat! The Workshop is notoriously protective of their copyrights, and that includes records like that. That's the challenge we've faced with this kind of list. It's a combination of their protectiveness and the press' lack of interest in recording cast and crew lists of The Show. We can only include entries that are well-sourced; see below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few observations:
    • What is the qualification for inclusion on this list? Liz Lemon, Dr. Feel, Donald Grump, and Jamie Fox were one-offs. If one-offs count, we should have J. Joe Jeans and his jelly beans. In comparison, there's recurring characters like Tony and Lulu that haven't made the cut.
This is stated on the list talk page: Talk:List_of_Sesame_Street_Muppets#Possible_criteria_for_inclusion. Perhaps what we need to do is put the list in a template at the top of the talk page. The answer to your question, though, is that we've only included characters that can be sourced. The characters you mention in your first list are one-offs, that's true, but they have reliable sources to back them up. The other characters are in Muppet Wiki, also true, but Muppet Wiki isn't a reliable source, so we can't use them. Muppet Wiki is a great website, and its character lists are more comprehensive, but that's because it isn't hampered by things like our policy about RS. I also don't think that we should exclude characters just because they appeared just once. I don't think that we should only include characters after so many appearances, since it would be arbitrary anyway.
    • Slimey: "other than Buster, the smartest character on Sesame Street": is this Gikow's assertion?
Yes. I added "according to Gikow" to clarify.
The problem with the SW's episode summary is that it doesn't connect Segi with the song. But I think it's enough, so I changed the entry as per your request.
    • Richard Hunt's profile in The Works lists him as Placido.
What page? I looked at my copy, and Hunt's profile on p. 58 doesn't mention Placido.
Another challenge with this list is an over-zealous editor who can't seem to understand the RS concept, so I'll blame it on him. ;) At any rate, I removed it. Again, we shouldn't use Muppet Wiki as a source, and the only source for him is the episode from the Old School DVD. I can remove the entry if you want.
  • Fairly strong, but there's cleanup to be done. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: Thanks. Eagerly awaiting your response. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support on the grounds that this is a valuable, comprehensive, (surprisingly) well-cited and basically well-ordered list attached to an important television franchise.
My major concern is the Description field, as there's apparently been no consistent criteria applied as to which details are important, leading to the whole reading as less than a formally encyclopedic list. :)
Some Muppets have physical descriptions given, others don't; some have dates of appearance given (which I'd suggest is an essential part of what the reader would be looking for in a list of this type), most don't; some have their raison d'etre included (again, fairly important info re: a series so notoriously finicky about educational purpose), some don't; some include a short description of their plotline, others don't, etc etc. I do realise some of this is inevitable, also largely a function of the info available in the sources, but still feel like there's room for more rigorous standardisation.
You're right; the descriptions given do, for the most part, follow the sources. As stated above, when there are no reliable sources that specify dates, they're not listed. I agree that the dates are something that readers would want to know, but it's obvious that the Sesame Workshop disagrees and obviously doesn't think they're important, because they're not even listed on Sesame Street.org. The characters' educational purpose isn't always discussed in the sources, either. Davis is a major source for that info, but not always, and when he discusses it, I summarized it. With the limitations at hand, the kind of standarization you're asking for is impossible. I suppose a solution would be to remove the description field, but that would violate the comprehensive policy of FLs, so I wouldn't support it. I'll say it again: as the main editor of this list, I tried my best to follow the sources. I believe that there's enough to warrant its promotion to FLC, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given your track record of thoroughness re: sourcing I'll consider that largely answered then, and acceptable on the assumption it will be an ongoing point for improvement. I'd suggest a line could be inserted in the header indicating that the info for each entry is on a where-available basis, but that's optional.
My one remaining question is re: physical description. I do get what you're saying below re: not needing a lot of details, esp. in collective list format; the distinctive appearance of many of these characters is already iconic within international pop-culture.
That said, I'd like an explanation of the reasoning behind why, for instance, the Count is in fact afforded a very detailed visual--right down to the shape of his tongue!--while Ernie and Big Bird have only very sketchy ones, as do several other, sometimes very minor characters (ie. Granny Bird). Meanwhile, the likes of Bert, Cookie Monster and Grover (not to mention Lefty the salesman and the wholly mysterious 'Deena') aren't identified visually at all, even by basic type. Is this also a function of sourcing? If so, wouldn't photos suffice as referencing in most cases? Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much of it is due to sources; for example, Granny Bird's description is taken from Sesame Street.org. Notice that I didn't include everything, although I included her grey tuft because it makes her different than Big Bird. The source for Lefty just mentioned that Oz performed him, nothing more, and Deena's source had more info about her, although nothing about her appearance. As mentioned above, we haven't used images of characters because of the Workshop's protection of their images, and because I think that they better belong in their individual character articles, if they're available. When the source I used emphasized the character's appearance, as it did with the Count, I used it in the description. I agree that one of the more distinctive things about the Count is his appearance, while for characters like Bert and Ernie, it's not. That being said, I suppose I could see if other sources mention more about the more famous characters' appearance, if you would like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like, please. :) Descriptions are so basic to a list like this that major discrepancies therein just come off as odd. It should be possible to at least ID all the characters by basic type, ie. human(oid?) or monster. Re: the Count specifically... well, yes, his appearance is very distinctive and that should be mentioned, but in that much detail, right down to his tongue? 'Classic movie vampire' would about cover it, I think. (I'd also argue that Ernie & Bert's appearance is enough a part of their dynamic to be equally important, but if it's not in the sources won't insist. Wouldn't mind their dynamic generally being played up a bit more, regardless). Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the problem, the writing style/quality varies noticeably. Tenses are mixed, capitalisation is occasionally odd (Roosevelt Franklin described as a 'Reddish-Magenta Anything Muppet' for instance, which also serves as a nice example of over-emphasised minor detail; meanwhile the comparatively huge fact that Rosita was originally designed as a fruit bat, hence her winglike arms, goes unreported--and Grover, of all Muppets, is dismissed in a single broad quote). There's a lot of rather glibly subjective quoting where objective fact might work better (as per this vague description [and mangled syntax] in the Guy Smiley entry: '...with a "wide, grinning mouth and his desire to explore the lives of others without revealing his own"'). I'm afraid it will need a thorough copyedit before I can comfortably support it as the best Wiki has to offer.
I've gone through it the entries again for the kind of thing you're describing. I've had to do this at least twice since this review began because this list has suffered at the hands of another editor who insists on emphasizing minor details like if a character was an Anything Muppet or its color, despite repeated requests to cease and desist. I suppose I should report his behavior, but I keep hoping for different outcomes. I suppose I will if this list is promoted.
Yeah, enthusiastic-but-awkward kid's show article editors... been there, suffered through that, both here and as a primary editor of the Sesame Street page on TVTropes. :) I'm willing to leave the situation in your capable hands for the future. Looking through the list now (and having done some further tweaking myself) things are much better, albeit I'm still not quite sure what's going on re: tenses--is the past tense intended to indicate Muppets who've been definitively retired? Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Went through and fixed the tenses where appropriate. I tended toward using present tense. Thanks for your tweaking. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad to help. :) OK, will consider that fixed then.Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I didn't include Rosita's description as a fruit bat because I thought it was a little weird, plus her current version has no indication of it. I thought it was too minor to include, again, because it has little to do with her character for most of her history. Some of the more well-known Muppets don't have an extensive description because I didn't think that they needed it. That being said, I rewrote Grover's description and removed the Guy Smiley quote. Remember, these are just summaries; I think that a lot of the descriptions you're asking for better belongs in individual character articles, which has huge potential for improvements and all the awards that come along with them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I basically agree with this, so long as it's applied in a logical and even-handed manner. Although--while it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on--without the context, Rosita's full name already comes across as a little weird. How about just tacking "...a reference to her initial conception as a fruit bat" onto the end there? Also, while we're at it, a bit of explanation re: how Elizabeth is 'different from the typical little girl character'? And surely poor Lefty, as unique and memorable as he was, can be provided with more than the equivalent of a blank space? (There's also this little non-sequitur on the end of Segi's entry: "She later appeared on other episodes of the show." Why is that important?) Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put the fruit bat reference back in. It's not really explained in Gikow, but I added more about how Elizabeth's portrayer felt about her. Lefty might be memorable to you, but none of the sources thinks he warrants more than just a mention, sorry. And I removed that phrase; more catering to aforementioned editor. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Alas, poor Lefty, I knew him... More seriously, I seem to recall that Borgenicht--and yes, I do realise how ironic that recommendation is--covered him in some detail... *drags out book* Yep, here we are, pp.148-9: ""Remember the slightly shifty salesman in the trenchcoat? He'd stop you in the street with an all-knowing "Psst!", open his trenchcoat and show you his wares." Followed by a list of said wares and a recap of the "Golden An" sketch. (The fact that said sketch is one of this reviewer's all-time favourites may-or-may not be most of the reason she's harping on this.) Otherwise, will consider this point resolved.Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I have a pretty good idea where at least some of the informality comes from, as I actually own Borgenicht's Sesame Street Unpaved. While it's a clearly earnest, well-researched tribute, it's also pretty unabashedly affectionate fancruft, and I'd be extremely wary of using extensive quotes etc. from it in a Wikipedia context (the unnecessarily-cutesy entry for Gladys the Cow sums up the problem nicely). I've not seen the Gilkow book, but the title, and the content of the citations to it here, give me the impression that it has similar issues. Shoebox2 talk 16:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the informality also comes from the fact that we're talking about characters on a children's TV show. I mean, just how serious can one get about a seven feet tall and twelve feet wide whatever-the-heck-Snuffy-is? Some of the description is whimsical because of the subject matter. Some minor fancruft is unavoidable (and I love the Gladys quote! it's funny). Even Davis, which is incredibly well-researched and historical, can't help himself; he's an unapologetic fan and clearly states it. I'm not sure it can be helped, with the kind of devotion and affection The Show elicits in most of us. I agree that Unpaved is the worst case, so I did my best to limit its use, and replaced its content with other sources when possible. You're also right about Gikow, who was commissioned by the Workshop to write her book, although it's better. It's still got some valuable information, though. The most fancrufty of all is Sesame Street.org, but you'll notice that I used it the least, and only to fill in gaping holes. And I've never used Muppet Wiki. I used the least reliable and more fancrafty sources with restraint, and again, to ensure that this list is as comprehensive as possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know, I know. :) Didn't mean to come across as a total Grouch--as the author of most of the 'List of Horrible Histories episodes', I haven't an, erm, trash can to stand on anyway. My only real concern was that the whimsy might be getting in the way of the encyclopedic, however most of that tendency seems to have been eliminated in the copyedit mentioned above, and successfully rationalised in the notes re: sourcing here. Objection withdrawn, with memo duly delivered to self re: not reviewing lighthearted articles while in a cranky mood. Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do appreciate the picky comments; they make for a better list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Jim Henson was initially..." no need to repeat his first name.
  • "but he agreed to join" skip the "he".
  • "for its social goals" do you mean "to support its social goals" or "in support of its social goals"?
  • "(renamed to the Sesame Workshop in 2000)" is in the wrong place in the sentence.
Above items addressed.
  • "In early research, the Muppet segments of the show scored high" what research, what scores?
I'm not sure that kind of information is warranted here. The point is that the segments were popular with the viewers, so I changed the wording to reflect it.
  • "Jim Henson, creator of The Muppets. Henson was initially reluctant to work on Sesame Street, but joined due to social concerns of the time." -> "Jim Henson, creator of The Muppets, was initially reluctant to work on Sesame Street, but joined due to social concerns of the time."
  • Image captions, like Frank Oz's, aren't complete and don't need full stops.
  • "1969–1973" (e.g.) I thought year ranges within a century lose the century in the second year, e.g. 1969–73.
  • "He is a parody of Alistair Cooke" etc, it's worth giving a tiny context to this, e.g. "parody of British broadcaster Alistair Cooke".
Above items addressed.
  • What does N/A mean for Snerf?
The same as it means for everything else: not available, or no answer.
But the distinction is important. Do you just not know, or is that column actually not applicable to Snerf? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you need to link common terms like pigeon, rabbit, trashman etc etc etc.
Same excuse/explanation as above. Fixed.
  • " 8-foot-2-inch" please convert all measurements to those of us who have moved into the 20th century.
Unnecessary, as per WP:UNIT: "In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg)."
Ironically, your example does exactly what I asked for.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6-year-old" MOSNUM, six.
  • "is a silent trashman who does not talk often" silent or not?
All addressed thus far

Enough so far, I have other things to do right now, so apologies for not finishing the review, but as you can see, plenty to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: please continue; it's very helpful and not something other reviewers have noticed so far. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further

  • " helps Forgetful get out of difficulties and helps " repetitive
Done.
  • Brian Muehl[32][46] - any reason we need two cites for one fact?
No, removed 46.
  • Still find N/A confusing, if it really means "unknown" then it should say that, as "not applicable" isn't actually correct.
Changed.
  • "As Sesame Street Unpaved says," A little odd when all other sections are descriptions of the characters themselves, not quotes about them.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I removed the phrase.
  • You say how the Dingers communicate but don't describe their physical characteristics in any way.
Yes, that's because the source doesn't; it only describes what's included in the description.
  • No description at all for Flo Bear? or Lefty the Salesman?
Yes; again for the above reason. The sources only name the puppeteers.
  • pal is not encyclopaedic.
Changed to "friend".
  • "of 9-11" can we be more expansive here.
Added "the terrorist attacks"
  • Louis not Louie.
According to the source, Louie is the correct name of the character.
  • "Muppet-tribute to Monty Python's Flying Circus" how is it a tribute to a comedy series? In what sense?
"Tribute" is what the source says, but "homage" is probably a better choice.
  • Someone was once picky to me and said all your book refs need a full stop after them to be consistent with the template references.
Ooo, picky! ;) I'm fairly certain I got them all.
  • Fisch ref has two full stops.
All fixed now.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man; I really appreciate the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those Muppets without descriptions, are there no other reliable sources that can be used? E.g. is this of no use? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that one, obviously, plus a couple of others from the SS.org site. Thanks for the catch. The other descriptions are blank because there are no references that support them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2015 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Sesame_Street_Muppets/archive1&oldid=1136094000"