Talk:Sesame Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured article Sesame Street is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Television (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Animation / American (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American animation work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

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

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

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

I used to be, too, but after the statements about overlinking were made, I went the other extreme. Sometimes, I just don't know if a word has an article about it, so I don't bother to find out because I'm basically a lazy person. I don't think that wikilinking is necessary all the time, especially when the meaning is obvious, either by the context or an expectation of general knowledge. However, I did link most of what you suggest below. Christine (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • link or explain "measurable outcomes", production values, "cognitive, affective, and outreach goals"
  • link the following: children's television, animation, short films, preschool, curriculum, television producer, addictive, grant, commercial television
  • consider linking the following: reviews, educational television, US federal government, broadcasts
  • Spell out Grammys and Emmys
    Um, not sure what you mean by this. Christine (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I mean link Grammy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Duh, of course. Don't know why it's necessary, but whatever you say, dude. Christine (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that we are starting at 2729 characters of readable prose in the LEAD. We want to stay under 3000.
    Yes, I realize. I actually worked hard at keeping it as short as it now is. It's a long article, so it was a challenge. Christine (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We will revisit the LEAD after I read the rest of the article and determine if the LEAD properly summarizes it. However, keep in mind that a summary of each major section should be incorporated into the LEAD. Revise the LEAD according to this plan while I get around to the rest of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    I look forward to your input with the Lead; writing leads is one of my weakest areas of WP content, so I always welcome assistance. Christine (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I am seeing redundant links with the WP:LEAD. The first two links in the section for public broadcasting, and ratings are for terms linked previously. Please see WP:OVERLINKING. Do not link the same term multiple times. We assume the reader learned what he need from the link in its first instance. The 4th, 5th and 6th links for Joan Ganz Cooney, Carnegie Foundation, and Lloyd Morrisett are also redundant and the 7th is for a term that should have been linked in the LEAD (Children's television series).
    I agree that there is overlinking going on, and I will fix them. However, it's my understanding that you link each term twice--the first time in the lead, and then one more time the first time it's used in the body of the article, to accommodate people who either only read the lead or skip reading the lead. So that means that I'd link Cooney in the lead, and then one more time in the first line of the "Origins" section. It that correct? (BTW, what do you think of the re-name, which was done by another editor? Personally, I'm not sure I like it, but I'll go with the consensus.) Christine (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I have never heard of linking everything the first two times.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I think I prefer History.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    I will defer to your judgment as the reviewer re: linking. I agree with you, so I changed the heading back. 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Christine (talk)
    3 of the first 4 links in the main body continue to be redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Good eye, thanks for the catch. I saw one more than you did. Christine (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The whole first paragraph seems to repeat the LEAD. The lead is suppose to summarize the rest of the article, meaning that anything in the LEAD should appear in greater detail in the main text.
    Now that I look at the lead closely, I agree that it currently doesn't summarize the entire article adequately. I promise to work on it as we go through this review. To start, I cut out some of the redundancy. Christine (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What does this mean "change from the traditional magazine format to a narrative format in 2002"?
    Remember, this article is basically made up of summaries of several forked articles. This section, for example, is a summary of History of Sesame Street, which is a FA, btw. But you're right; the difference between the two terms--magazine and narrative formats--is unclear here. My solution is to remove "traditional magazine format" completely and explain what it meant by "narrative format," which meant that I had to change the sentence's structure a bit. I think it works. Christine (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    O.K., but link storyline to something on that dab page upon its first use earlier.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Got it. Christine (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What about "changes in viewing habits of young children"?
    Again, see above re: summarization. It refers to their discovery that little kids can attend longer than they thought. My inclination, though, is to cut the phrase. Christine (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Which type of Emmy is "Outstanding Achievement Emmy"? Is it a Primetime Emmy Award Is this the retired category "Outstanding Program Achievement by Individuals in Daytime Drama" or "Individual Achievement in Animation" or something else?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    I went back and rewatched the clip (I've said this before--research for WP is such a burden!--and changed it to its more accurate title of the award, Emmy for Lifetime Achievement. ;) Christine (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Please mention 36th Daytime Emmy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Done. Christine (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since you deleted "production values", addictive, grant, and television producer from the LEAD, you need to link them or explain it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Ugh, you're right. Christine (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    Be careful when linking terms like grant. Now you have to fix it and a bunch of other dabs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, I always forget about that little tool. Got em. Christine (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Links still necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link book royalties, product licensing--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Done. Christine (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The following first sentence is a nightmare
    As writer Cary O'Dell has stated, Sesame Street's producers, from its first episode, have used elements of commercial television in structuring the format of the show: "a strong visual style, fast-moving action, humor, and music"
    Note the the first phrase is a throwaway. It adds almost nothing.
    "from its first episode" is suppose to be modifying Sesame Street, but it is placed to modify producers. Move it to replace the throwaway.
    O.K. but as well as is serving as a conjunction and should not be preceded by a comma unless the subsequent phrase is independent, which it is not since it has no subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    Removed comma. I tend, to be, a serial comma user. ;) Christine (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What does "elements of commercial television" mean?
    I've addressed all of the above. Restructuring the first sentence required restructuring the second as well. You know your tendency towards overlinking? At some point in my editing career, someone told me that I need to attribute everything, so many of my articles include phrases like, "According to so-and-so..." and way too much. My opinion is that these kinds of things, like linking, tend to have pendulum swings, so this review will help me go more in the middle. Christine (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the meaning of the following sentence: "each episode was structured like a magazine that would allow the producers to use a mixture of styles, paces, and characters."
    Ugh, the entire paragraph was a mess. I've come to the conclusion that the magazine analogy isn't a very good one, or at least people tend to have a tendency to not understand what it means. I have a feeling it's an industry term, and sometime those of us who are very familiar with the show can get. As a result, it has to be explained very carefully, which isn't appropriate for a summary like this one. So I removed the phrase, since the concept is explained in the next few sentences, anyway. Christine (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link child psychologists
  • Does "attended to the shows" mean paid attention to show?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it does. Made the change.
  • commercial television does not need to be linked again here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Dealt with in the deletions made. Christine (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Educational goals
  • $8 million needs to be converted to current dollars. (see Bobby Orr for an example)
    It has a footnote that can be used. No reader will know whether 8 million then is 20, 40 or 60 million today. Daily fluctuations are not that important compared to the general magnitude of order of the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    I still respectfully disagree. If you still want this, then please direct me to a source that converts US dollars. Christine (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by a source. I think the following would benefit the article: $8 million ($51 million in 2015 dollars[1])--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Link licensing arrangement and corporate sponsorship.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    Linking done. Here's what I think about converting the $8 million to current dollars. I don't think it's necessary. Firstly, you're the first reviewer I've come across who has demanded it. Currency, as recent history has shown, fluctuates greatly and there's no way to know if it's accurate the day someone reads it. I think the reader is smart enough to know that $8 million in 1969 is different than $8 million today. I suppose it would be okay if there was a source out there that states, "In today's money, that's..." Another way I'd do it is if there was a chart that converted money amounts into today's currency, and then I'd relegate it in a note. Christine (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • link child science, professor.
  • Not sure I understand how "research to shape the program directly" fits in with other three stages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I thought that the concept--a formal definition of the CTW model--was important enough to have as a quote, so I hesitate changing, paraphrasing, or removing it. And I'm not sure what you don't understand. Christine (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • their goals -> its goals.
    Changed to "the show's goals" instead, since it's really talking about the researchers and producers' goals, not the notebook's.
  • link or explain story arc, costumes, lights, and sets--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Didn't link lighting, because I wasn't able to find an appropriate article. Christine (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the following grammatically correct: "but it earned a 3.3 Nielsen rating, or 1.9 million households"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Probably not, so changed to "which totaled". Christine (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • link Research study
  • If you use "Educational Testing Service (ETS)" in one location, subsequent locations should just use ETS.
  • link "Summative research" fully the first time and then don't relink here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    Got these. Christine (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Critical reception

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

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


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

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

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

Remaining outstanding issues:

  • link the following: preschool, curriculum
  • We still need to determine if the LEAD properly summarizes the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    At the current time, the lead isn't adequate. Let me work on it before I do the linking. Christine (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Lead now re-written, and links completed. Please review and see if I've missed anything. Christine (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "It was the first time a children's television show used educational goals and a curriculum to inform its content."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    Clarified by changing to: "It was the first time the producers and writers of a children's television show used educational goals and a curriculum to create its content." Christine (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since you deleted "production values", addictive, and grant from the LEAD, you need to link them or explain it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Please comment on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      "Production values" doesn't have an article; "production" does, and it's already linked. Got "addictive", thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Explain your objection to using $8 million ($51 million in 2015 dollars[1]).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't see the formatting! Now it works great, and will be added immediately. Christine (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article seems to be missing some things. I want to see a separate section on the characters, more on the music and some discussion on shows and pop culture arising from Sesame Street.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I saw comments about about characters. I looked at the very first article listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Theatre.2C_film_and_drama under "Live action television and radio" and saw 30_Rock#Cast_and_characters. Similary for the "Animation" section, I saw Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Characters. That is what this article needs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've thought about this feedback some. I wonder if the solution to this is as simple as changing the "Cast and crew" section to "Cast, crew, and characters". I say that because the characters are discussed there already. Yes, it talks in generalities, but the specifics belong in the character lists and articles about the individual characters. This section does, however, talk about the purpose of the Muppets, human actors, and kid actors, and I think it's more than enough. Regarding the pop culture feedback: Please provide reasons why you think it should be included. Christine (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
        • That section needs a subsection arranged like those I mentioned above. For example, I should be able to put garbage can in the find box and be moved to Oscar or yellow and find myself at Big bird. I don't know how much the human characters have changed over the years, but the Muppets probably have not changed much. A reader should be able to find out the guy in the garbage can on the Sesame Street article. Like any other well-written TV show article there will be mentions of the characters in the text. However, there should be a single section where brief summaries of the main characters is given with a {{main}} header to a main article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
          • But Tony, there already are mentions of characters throughout the text. Oscar, for example, is mentioned in the second section, "Format". Mr. Hooper, who appeared in the first episode, is in the lead. And the template is already below the "Cast, crew, and characters" section. I think that since there have been so many characters on the show, it's better, in this case, to simplify things by having a section that discusses them generally. I mean, how do we decide "major characters"? Would we include Chris because he's on the show now and has been for the last five years, but not Savion, who was on it for four years in the 90s but no one remembers anymore? It would make this article impossibly long. I don't think that in this case, your suggestion is untenable and would significantly detract from the rest of the content. (BTW, if you search for "trash can", Oscar does pop up.) Christine (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I am not asking you to work from memory and tell us what you know. I am asking you to help the reader distill properly sourced content from List of human characters in Sesame Street, Animated characters in Sesame Street and Sesame Street Muppets into one manageable list of notable characters on Sesame Street. I would be happy if you just made a list of all characters who have WP articles from those pages if there is no other source of who is important in the history of Sesame Street. You are taking responsibility for an overview article. Can the reader rely on you to give him an organized overview of the important characters. If you can't, I guess The Simpsons is featured without doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
              But the section in question already does what you're asking, Tony. Some of the content in the leads of those lists were lifted, almost word for word, from the content here. If I were to do as you ask--recreate those lists over here, that would make for a very long article. I think that this article already does discuss the important characters. As a matter of fact, way back in 2004, during this article's very first FAC, when it passed when standards for FAs were much lower, it was suggested that character lists be placed in separate lists. And when it was (rightfully) delisted in 2008, which inspired me to take it on, I believe that one of the reasons for it was that a character list had found its way back.
              And isn't any time an editor takes on a parent article like this one, she's taking a huge responsibility? I wish that I wasn't alone in it, and that others have contributed, but it hasn't happened that way. It's apt that you mention The Simpsons, because I've looked at it as a model for what a high-quality TV show article can be like. You're right, it doesn't have a character list, but does what you're asking here: summarize the content from the lists, but for this one, things are much more complicated. I stand by what I've done here. Christine (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Old School DVDs[edit]

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

According to the New York Times, the packaging of a DVD release of Sesame Street episodes stated, "These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child." [1]

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

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

Deleted images, archived requests / deletion log entries?[edit]

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

Youtube channel hacking[edit]

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

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

This article needs to be protected![edit]

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

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

Sesame Street as science primer[edit]

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

Thanks, Sgerbic. Actually, there is information in this article and in its ancillaries about The Show's curriculum, which changes every five years or so and focuses on a different subject. Currently, they're on Science, so the street scenes at the beginning of each episode focuses on science, experiments, and problem solving. (The episode we just watched this morning, from the current season, was about the properties of bubbles!) I agree that there needs to be some information here or elsewhere added about the curriculum changing, but there isn't. (To be honest, I can't remember if it was never stated in the sources or if it was simply oversight on my part, the main editor of those articles.) It would be great if there was some source, even USA Today, that clearly states it. The problem is, though, I went to the source you provided, and it brought me to a news source (not USA Today) with nothing about the article itself. Would you mind providing the actual link to the article you're talking about, please? That would be very helpful. Christine (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
here's a couple, looks like there are a bunch more. Sgerbic (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Un-referenced Historical/Educational claims[edit]

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

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

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

Misleading statement[edit]

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

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

Excess wikilinking[edit]

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

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

Episode page[edit]

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

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


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

Cast longevity[edit]

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

Good question. The short answer, at least from me, is I dunno. I wouldn't be surprised if there were mention of McGrath's and Long's accomplishments in the popular press, though. Something one can research. I challenge you, dear anonymous IP, to do just that! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There may very well be sources discussing their long runs, but they are clearly not the "longest time playing a single character in a single series in US television". I don't know who that would be, but I figured a soap opera was a likely place to look. Sure enough: List_of_longest-serving_soap_opera_actors#Top_10_across_all_platforms has Helen Wagner (who?) as the same character for 54 years. Lesley Saweard, a UK soaper, has 61 years in so far. (Saweard doesn't have a Wikipedia article, I assume, because WP:ENT requires 2 significant roles in notable productions and the UK press hasn't bother to write anything up.) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sesame Street Unpaved (series)[edit]

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

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

This article is a disaster![edit]

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

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

Disaster? Please. I'm sure there are other ways to express your opinions about this article, which has been featured since 2011. The reviewers at the time certainly thought that it fulfilled the featured article criteria, and it's been relatively stable, which is quite an accomplishment, since most articles about children's TV tend to be heavily vandalized. (I've always thought that this article should at least be semi-protected, but the admins obviously disagree.) Your opinions about what an article should be notwithstanding, we need to follow established WP policies, and this article does. You're correct that articles should be well-balanced; the FA criteria calls that "comprehensive" (see point 1b). However, you're incorrect about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. WP policy (see WP:PSTS) states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
The structure, BTW, follows the structure of similar articles about children's TV. Actually, the structure of this article, with exceptions based upon specific aspects of the shows like research (an important aspect of Sesame Street, according to most of the sources out there), is based upon Blue's Clues, another article I researched and brought to FA. This article's structure was designed by consensus.
A complete overhaul and a rewrite of this article is unnecessary. If you wish to make any changes, please continue to follow another policy, WP:TALK, and discuss what you want to change before you change it. If any substantial changes are made, it will no longer be a FA. If you like, you can submit it to FA review, and see if other reviewers agree with your estimation of how much of a disaster it is. I suspect that they will not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)