Talk:Sesame Street research

Images

What's going on with the images on this page? You'll need to resolve the commented-out image questions prior to getting the GA tick. It also seems to make a beggar of belief that you can't find anything to illustrate this article with, whether it be adorable Muppets or the cold, heartless walls of research conglomerate headquarters. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was able to find one heartless image! ;) Seriously, though, I created and wrote this article, but I did not nominate it for GA. To be honest, although it's languished in GAC for months due to the backlog, this is probably not a good time for a serious review because I just resubmitted History of Sesame Street for FAC. I may need to request for a hold at GAC. At any rate, it's true--I have not worked hard on images for this article. I also know that that image criteria isn't as strict for GAC, so I promise to see what I can do in the coming days. That being said, it is very difficult to find images for Sesame Street-related articles. The Sesame Workshop is notoriously protective of character images. I did send them an email requesting that they release some to us, but I'm not holding my breath. Christine (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a better answer than I was expecting and will probably be helpful to the eventual GA reviewer! Thank you. Was just getting frustrated by a run of GANs that were obviously not up to the criteria and was assuming this might be another. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you're welcome! ;) I understand the frustration. Like I said, I'll do my best to see what improvements I can make in between working on other stuff. I think that other than the lack of images, this article's prose fits the GA criteria, so I'm not too worried about it passing at this level. I could be wrong, though; I certainly have been before. Christine (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a few images to this article. I forgot until I went back that it originally had images, but some bot went through and commented them out. I believe that the current images are fair-use. Christine (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I should note that, even if they did say "sure, here's a publicity image of our characters, that could be Creative Commons", Wikimedia Commons wouldn't accept it. They've just deleted scores of images related to Sesame Street, even of public show tapings in the middle of New York City (Murray), because apparently there's no license to say "the photo is free, but there's things in the photo that are copyrighten".

Did you use the general contact form, or contact someone specific within the organization? They don't really reply to their general email address, but I'm pretty sure I can find someone from within their research department, contact them directly, and get an image or two with the participation of the media department. I'm thinking about something current, and perhaps one of the dozens of images they have featured on those film strips in the 40th anniversary book. That all said, GA reviewers: I don't expect we'd have anything by the end of the review timeslot. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just contacted Jodi Lefkowitz, the media contact at the Joan Ganz Cooney Centre at Sesame Workshop. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I *highly* recommend seeing if we can get some of Maurice Sendak's doodles from the planning meetings for Sesame included here -- they're priceless. They show up in Gerald Lesser's book. Gus andrews (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Gus, I so agree; Sendak's doodles are great and it would be awesome if we could use them here for this article. The trouble is, though, that doing so would violate WP's policy about copyrighted images. This article doesn't mention Sendak, because as main editor, I didn't think that it fit, but he is mentioned in Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street. Images have always been an issue for Sesame Street, unfortunately. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Korruski^Talk 09:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This was a tough one to review, and probably a bad choice for my first ever review! It's text-heavy and quite technical in places, and it's hard to check the references as almost all of them are offline, so I have had to assume good faith with most of those.

Still, it's a great article. Really interesting niche subject, well-researched and laid out, nicely written for the most part, and seems more than comprehensive. Most of my concerns are minor, or revolve around ways that it could be made clearer and easier to read, as currently it is a rather intimidating wall of text!

As I say, it's my first ever review. I really hope these comments are useful, and I would be happy to discuss any of them with you either here or on my talk page.

Best wishes.--Korruski^Talk 14:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Korruski. I appreciate the review and the assistance in the improvement of yet another Sesame Street article. I hope you have fun learning about it. It's good to challenge yourself! I can assure you that the sources check out; they've been used in many other SS articles. The subject requires off-line sources in order for it be comprehensive. Christine (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

• It immediately strikes me that the first sentence doesn't explain what the subject of the article actually is, per WP:BEGINNING. This especially important as the name of the article is vague (is it research into the characters on Sesame street? No, of course not, but it should be clear from the first line what it is about)

  Good point. I thought that the first line was a good punch. It's such a great line, though, so I moved it to the beginning of the second paragraph and as a result, had to change some of the wording in the first paragraph. Please tell me what you think of my solution. Christine (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  WP:Beginning says that 'if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence'. Personally, I would expect to see something like: "Sesame Street Research is the extensive research that producers and experts carried out when scripting the popular children's television program, in order to improve its educational qualities". Just helps to make it really clear what we are talking about, and almost all other articles use this format, so I am unsure about departing from it without a very good reason. True, some of the article also covers later research into the shows effectiveness, but that is more or less secondary, so doesn't necessarily need to be covered in the first sentence. What do you think?--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that. Remember, though, that the MOS is a guideline, but it's sensible advice, so I have no problems with following it. Christine (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Cool, done.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Formative and summative research: per WP:LEAD technical language should be avoided in the lead. Perhaps the terms could be replaced with laypersons explanations, or used and then summarised? If neither of these are possible, they should perhaps be bluelinks.

  Wasn't aware of the articles that exist on those things, so I wikilinked. I have a tendency towards under-linking, so thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, when I am first writing a lot of prose, I never think to stop and wikilink! Just have to force yourself to go back and look at it with the eye of an anal GA reviewer... :D Anyway, done.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Malcolm Gladwell quote: Was Gladwell referring to Sesame Street, or were CTW actually inspired by this quote? If so, it should be made clear. If not, it's not really needed, and would be better just summed up with ordinary text and a citation to show that they were indeed working on this assumption.

  But I love that quote! ;) You're right, though: the CTW came first. To make it easy on myself, I cut it, since it doesn't appear again in the article anyway. Christine (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  --Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead does seem to adequately summarise the content of the article, so that is good.

Overview:

• It perhaps takes too long to refer back to the subject of the article. I know you are setting the scene, but this is basically the first paragraph of main article content and you don't mention Sesame Street Research until the third sentence.

  But it does: the last two sentences of the first paragraph: As author Louise A. Gikow stated, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research. Cooney called the idea of combining research with television production "positively heretical", because it had never been done before. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Third sentence, I said. I just think you set up the first paragraph in a slightly roundabout way that would be perfect for a journalistic article, but is less suited to an encyclopedia. As with the lead, I think the subject of the article needs to appear in the first sentence of the main body of the article. Let me know if you particularly disagree with that, though.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well the easy way to fix that is to do some restructuring. Of course, when you do that, you have to tweak the rest of the paragraph. Christine (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, happy now :)--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• If Cooney was not alone in her criticism, it would be better to mention here who else supported her, rather than in a footnote, otherwise, it is verging on a bit weasely.

  I cut that phrase, but kept the footnote because Cooney was making an inside joke of sorts, and I wanted to explain it without spoiling it since people in television would get the reference immediately. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, cool.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'Cartoons' could be wikilinked?

  Okay. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  --Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• What is your source to suggest that Cooney's study was 'well received'? Although much of the rest of the sentence is cited, this claim seems not to be.

  I personally think that WP over-cites, but to follow policy, I moved the sources to the end of the sentence. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok. I'm going to have to trust that the sources actually include the fact that the study was well-received, as just moving them to the end of the sentence doesn't necessarily mean they are an adequate source!--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Boston and New York could be wikilinked?

  Okay, here's my opinion about this. There's underlinking, and there's over-linking. It's no longer necessary to link the names of cities and countries. Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, on closer examination, your stance is in accordance with WP:OVERLINK. My bad!--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'There was some concern' is weasel words

  Not only is is weasely, it's passive voice! Another issue I have in my writing. ;) Christine (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Nobody's perfect! :)--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

CTW Model

• Paragraph 2 (and again in para 3, and several other places) I personally don't like the format 'as xyz stated, "abc def"'. If the quote is itself important, then just say 'xyz stated "abc def"'. If it's not, then just summarise 'abc def' in the normal text of the article and cite it with reference to the quote. Perhaps this is personal preference, though.

  This reflects change in the WP practice of having to attribute every quote. I wrote this article before I knew about the change. Not that I'm blaming anyone, though. ;) I went through the entire article and improved the prose in this area. I think it's much better now. Christine (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yup, much better, thanks.--Korruski^Talk 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is no non-free media use rational for this article for TakalaniSesame-set.jpg‎.

  Got it, thanks.

  Yup, all good now.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Formative research

• How does this tie in to the CTW model? Might it be better as a sub-heading to it? Otherwise, it's not clear what the relationship between the two is.

  Please forgive my denseness, but I'm not sure what you mean. I state above that formative research, along with summative research, make up the model for the purpose of informing production. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wasn't clear here. But you get it in your comment below and, based on that, I'm happy with the current structure.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• You could add sub-headings of 'methods' and 'conclusions' to break this up a bit? It seems to roughly fall into that pattern anyway.

  That's an excellent idea. It better follows the structure of a formal research study. To take it even further, I named the second sub-heading "Results" instead. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Great!--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first sentence doesn't quite make sense to me. Do you mean '...used concepts from the field...'?

  From is better. Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  --Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• In what way were pre-schoolers more sophisticated television viewers? This seems important information. (Para 1)

  I removed the sentence because it's kind of a throw-away. If I were to explain it, it would complicate things. I don't think that discussion belongs in the article, anymore. Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok. I guess it's not crucial, and there's no point adding extra information for the sake of it. Just seemed like the sort of claim that should have some explanation. But if you can remove it without damaging the article, so much the better.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to remove some or all of the information in about Palmer and his background as it lengthens an already quite wordy section with information that, while interesting, is not central to the main thrust of the article. (Para 1)

  I think I disagree. I think it's important that we establish his credentials and introduce who he was. Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, not a big deal. It felt to me as if it delays the main drive of that section of the article, which is about the research. I wonder if the Palmer info could go in a seperate section or even some kind of infobox. Not sure if that's standard for WP though. Anyway, definitely not a deal-breaker as far as GA goes.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Does "go back to the drawing board" need to be a quote? If so, who said it? Personally, I would be a bit clearer on what they would do. Would they make specific changes based on the information received, or would they literally script a new show? The latter seems unlikely! (Para 2)

  Actually, they did both! Note 5 cites a specific example (the Snuffy's parents get a divorce storyline) when they scrapped entire episodes. It really demonstrates the importance of research. At any rate, I paraphrased the line to read, "...they would change or remove content." Better? Christine (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Much better. Thanks!--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Summative research

• Again, how does this tie in to 'The CTW model' section? Should it be a subsection?

  I've thought about this question, and I wonder if what you mean is, "Why is "The CTW model" its own section?" The model, as a concept, really should be separate from a discussion about the research conducted on The Show. Christine (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's basically what I was asking! I took the formative and summative research to be part of the CTW model, but if you think it makes more sense to be seperate, you're the expert.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why did the CTW and ETS have a potentially adversarial nature? This is interesting, it would be good to know more.

  The original sources doesn't explain it, either, so I removed it and then restructured the other part of that phrase, about the ETS lending credibility to the CTW. Christine (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, cool.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Longitudional study should probably be replaced, explained or at least bluelinked

  Linked. Christine (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  --Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

General comments:

• Is there an image that could be used at the top of the article? A logo or something?

  I went ahead and added the SS logo, but I suspect that it wouldn't last if I brought this to FAC. Christine (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  I dunno. Logos seem to get away with being used under fair-use quite widely. Check out Microsoft for example. Anyway, I'm happy with this.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are any pictures of Palmer available? It would be a great addition if so.

  Actually, no. At one point I had images of Cooney and Lesser, but they were removed for copyvio reasons. As I've stated, images are an issue with SS articles. I emailed the SW in Feb. and requested that they release some of Wikimedia, but haven't heard anything back yet. The SW is very protective of their images, so I'm not holding my breath. Images could very well be the reason SS articles don't get a high rating. I'm comfortalb e with the state of the images here, for now. Christine (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Shame, but never mind. I think more would be better, but if you're using as much as is available, then that's fine.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are any graphs or data results available? It would help to break up what ends up being quite a bit of text.

  Nothing that wouldn't violate copyrights. Note 3 refers to a graph of the CTW model. Christine (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ah well. Fine, as above.--Korruski^Talk 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   nicely written. Layout improved per comments above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I can't personally verify most of these, so am assuming good faith to a certain extent.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad and comprehensive, focus improved.

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):

   Images now have FURs.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass. Now to figure out how to make it a GA...

--Korruski^Talk 14:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAC left-overs

Below is the feedback from this article's second FAC, which I was unable to get to before it was archived.

Review by Evanh2008:

• I wonder if there isn't a public domain or CC-licensed image we could add to this article. Perhaps you've already looked into it?

As I state above (in my comments to a previous reviewer of this FAC), I have looked into it. Actually, I sent a letter to the SW last week. As I also state, I wish that this article had more images, but nothing is either available or would work in this article. If you have any ideas for images, please let me know.

Lead section

• "Unlike most children's programming and for the first time" is awkward and unwieldy. I suggest changing it to "Unlike earlier children's programming," or something similar. This improves reading flow and eliminates redundancy with the last sentence of the second paragraph.
• Similarly, I recommend trimming "The producers changed the show based on their findings, and they were able to compile a body of objective data." to something like "The producers changed the show and compiled a body of objective data based on their findings."

'Background and development

• "According to author Louise A. Gikow, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research to both create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers." ---> "According to author Louise A Gikow, Sesame Street's use of research both to create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers set it apart from other children's programming."
• "child-development" doesn't need to be hyphenated.
• Who is Palmer? That's a rhetorical question; I know it is referring to Ed Palmer, but his full name needs to be used on the first mention. After that, all references to him should use only the surname, except within quotations. On the first mention you should also introduce him, as is now done in the first paragraph of the following section. A simple copy and paste from that section to this one should be sufficient here.

All the above has been addressed. Thanks for the the Palmer catch; with how many times this article has been written and re-written, I needed the extra eyes to ensure that this was correct.

• "preschool children" ---> "preschoolers". This one isn't a big deal, but I feel like "children" is being used quite a bit here. This is unavoidable to some degree, but where we can shake up the terminology, we should.

Ok, but I'd bet that "preschool" is also commonly used, although I admit not nearly as much as "children".

The "CTW model"

• "interaction of television producers and educators" ---> "interaction between television producers and educators", for clarity.
• Place a comma immediately after "to shape the program". You used the serial comma in the previous section, and you'll want to keep this consistent.
• Per MOS:QUOTE, "its own unique perspective and expertise" needs to be attributed to the person who originally said it.

Above addressed.

• "gathering children's reactions and guiding production" is redundant here. The sentence works just fine without it.

Changed in last reviewer's feedback.

• Change "ensure" to "create". Strictly speaking, one "ensures" a verbal construct, as in "ensur[ing] the creation of the best possible product". For brevity, though, we should simply change it to "create".

Ok; when I made this change, the wording seemed awkward to me, so I moved "non-adversarial" to modify "relationship".

• CTW sounds like an acronym. What does it stand for, if anything?

Children's Television Workshop, mentioned and spelled out in the lead. The first mention of it in the body of the article, though, is the heading of this section. Do I need to spell it out here?

• The "acting as experts" clause is unnecessary. Researchers very rarely act in any other capacity.

Removed in response to previous comments.

• "The writers were initially skeptical about their collaboration with researchers and about the curriculum but, as Stone reported, eventually came to see it as "a backbone" of the creative process." ---> "Though initially skeptical about both the collaboration and the curriculum, the writers eventually came to see both as integral parts of the creative process." Excising the quote allows for better prose in this case.
• Similar to the Palmer bit above, who is Stone?

Previously addressed.

• "accessed" -- I am certain you mean "assessed".
• "Then they convened the experts in a series of meetings," ---> "They then convened the experts in a series of meetings,"
• "its set and characters" ---> "its set, and its characters" (That serial comma again, as well as parallel structure.)

Above fixed.

Formative research

• "to see if the show held children's attention" ---> "to determine whether the show held children's attention"
• "academicians" ---> "academics"
• "writer Malcolm Gladwell" ---> "author Malcolm Gladwell", so no one confuses him with a writer for the show.
• "formative research and working" ---> "formative research, and for working". Parallel structure.
• "These reinforced their results" ---> "These reinforced earlier results"
• "reactions and responses" ---> "reactions, and responses". Serial comma.
• "described by Sesame Street researcher Shalom M. Fisch" ---> "described by Fisch"
• Either put "distractor" in quotation marks in every instance or only in the first.

Above fixed. Thanks, will finish rest tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Summative research

• Remove "Educational Testing Service", leaving only the acronym. It has been named and wikilinked in the section above. See WP:OVERLINK.

This is the second time this has come up, and it was addressed in its second FAC. If it comes up again in its third FAC, I'll refer to it.

• "testers and observers" ---> "testers, and observers". Serial comma.
• "Although adult supervision was not required for children to learn the material being presented" ---> "Although adult supervision was not required for children to learn using the material presented". Minor tense adjustment, clarification that, presumably, children were learning using the material, and not learning the material itself.
• "toward school and better peer relations" ---> "toward school, and better peer relations". Serial comma.

Next two above. Re: serial comma: issue dealt with in previous review.

• "well-to-do and poorer children" ---> "well-to-do children and their less wealthy peers".
• There is a stray right parenthesis at "as cited by ETS)".
• "in Jamaica of the effects" ---> "in Jamaica regarding the effects"

Above addressed. I also addressed previous reviewer's concerns regarding language and cultural differences.

• "or made them less likely to participate in other educational activities". I assume you meant "or make them less likely to participate in other educational activities", but this sentence means the perfect opposite of that, in a grammatically confused way.

Um, not sure what you mean; the only difference is that my version is past tense. Perhaps it will come up again.

• What is the difference between "word" and "printed-word" in "letter and word recognition and printed-word identification"? Also, spot the missing serial comma.

I'm pretty sure it meant spoken- and printed-word recognition, so I made this change.

• "research was conducted for a study entitled 'The Recontact Study'" ---> "research was conducted for 'The Recontact Study'". Brevity and redundancy.
• "The effects were stronger in adolescent boys than adolescent girls" ---> "The effects were stronger in adolescent boys than in adolescent girls". Parallel structure.
• I am unsure that the clause, "and there was no evidence that the show had a negative effect on creativity", is necessary, as there is nothing in the surrounding text that would lead one to expect any such negative effect on creativity. If the study makes this observation in contrast with other programs, proper context should be added. If not, this clause should be removed.
• "In the spring of 2001" ---> "In spring 2001"
• "supporting the evidence that movement" ---> "supporting the idea that movement"
• "both on age and the type of" ---> "both on age and on the type of". Parallel structure.
• "the length increased" ---> "the duration increased". "Duration" is more specifically a measurement of time elapsed, while "length" is ambiguous.

A lot of prose issues here, but I'm confident they can be overcome. The content and overall structure is good, and I look forward to supporting shortly. Good luck! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

All issues addressed. It's too bad I didn't have the time to address these issues before this FAC was archived. Will re-submit and try to elicit the support it hasn't been able to muster before. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Later Studies section

The article says

When the study's research subjects were statistically equated for parents' level of education, birth order, residence and gender, it found that adolescents who had watched Sesame Street as preschoolers were positively influenced by it.

But in the very next sentence says:

Compared with children who had not watched it regularly, they had higher grades in English, math, and science; read for pleasure more often; perceived themselves as more competent, and expressed lower levels of aggression.

Isn't it a natural contradiction with the first sentence?

Hargup (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Where's the contradiction. The first statement says that adolescents who watched SS had benefited, and the second statement states how, that children who were regular viewers benefited in the ways listed. Is the "they" in the second statement unclear? If so, we can change it to something like, "Compared with adolescents who had not watched it regularly while preschoolers, the adolescents who had watched it had higher grades..." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sesame Street research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207054441/http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no3/Speech.pdf to http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no3/Speech.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

A google scholar search restricted to *only* since 2017 reveals this article is likely out of date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)