Talk:Sesame Street/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch


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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
LEAD
  • 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)[reply]
    I mean link Grammy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh, of course. Don't know why it's necessary, but whatever you say, dude. Christine (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
History
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think I prefer History.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Good eye, thanks for the catch. I saw one more than you did. Christine (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Got it. Christine (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Please mention 36th Daytime Emmy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Christine (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Ugh, you're right. Christine (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks, I always forget about that little tool. Got em. Christine (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Links still necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link book royalties, product licensing--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Christine (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Format
  • 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)[reply]
    Removed comma. I tend, to be, a serial comma user. ;) Christine (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Link child psychologists
    Done.
  • Does "attended to the shows" mean paid attention to show?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Dealt with in the deletions made. Christine (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Educational goals
Funding
  • $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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by a source. I think the following would benefit the article: $8 million ($66 million in 2024 dollars[1])--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link licensing arrangement and corporate sponsorship.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Research
  • link child science, professor.
    Done.
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Writing
  • 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)[reply]
    Didn't link lighting, because I wasn't able to find an appropriate article. Christine (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media
Ratings
Influence
  • 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)[reply]
    Got these. Christine (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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)[reply]
  2. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Remaining outstanding issues:

LEAD
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Lead now re-written, and links completed. Please review and see if I've missed anything. Christine (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
History
Funding
Overall
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
  1. ^ a b 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sesame_Street/GA1&oldid=647830846"