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)

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)

Figureskatingfan, are you able to work on updating this article before it’s scheduled TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia thanks for the note. The quick answer is yes, I'll be able to update this article since it's scheduled to be TFA after the end of my semester. You should know, though, that it's likely that there won't be much to update, since most of the research about Sesame Street was done in the early days of the show. I'll see what can be done, though, and let you know the outcome. That being said, I'll make sure that it'll be ready for the main page. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Report & update, pinging SandyGeorgia: As per the above request, I've checked all this article's sources and expanded it to include more recent studies. Consequently, it is, I believe, no longer out of date and ready for its scheduled TFA on Dec. 27. BTW, I was totally wrong about my assumption that there wouldn't be many more studies. Good to know! ;) Happy holidays, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Images

Looking at Sesame Street, there seem to be many public domain options for Sesame Street images. Could we add some? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Finding good images for articles about The Show has been difficult, but I suppose we could add an image of Big Bird and Oscar at the point this article mentions them. I just went through it for its prose and to update it in preparation for its main page appearance, so I wasn't really thinking about images. Let me see what I can do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good; thanks! I know folks have differing views of what falls under MOS:IMAGEREL, but in this case I think it'd be a plus to have more. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Claims of being first

The article contains claims that the research for this show was the first scientific study of children's television. These claims seem quite easy to disprove by counter-example. For example, see Television and Reading – a study of the effect of television on the reading proficiency of children which was published in 1951. There are many more such papers and even a bibliography for them, published in 1968.

I am therefore removing the claims made.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference issue

For the 2019 study with Levine as a co-author, should the first author's name be spelled Kearney (as in the long citation), or Kierney (as in the short citations)? Hog Farm _Talk 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, darn. (Actually, that's not my exact reaction after seeing this note.) @Hog Farm:, thanks for the catch; all is fixed. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)