I am nominating this for featured article because this is an interesting and well-researched article with a topic that's not well-represented on the project. It was very fun to write and to research, so please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look like this will pass in time to apply to the current round, which ends on 8/29. It also looks like it's unlikely that I'll be moving to the next round, either. :( Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there more information which could be added, or is this as comprehensive as the article can be? It seems to be a bit on the short side, but if it's as comprehensive as it can be then of course that isn't an issue. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a little more content from "Elmo's World", which I just expanded. I didn't even think that this article's short length would be an issue here. Is it too short for FAC? If so, let me know so I can remove it from the queue. To answer your question, yes it's as comprehensive as it can be. I think that it's an important topic, one deserving of its own article, and it fills in some holes of the main article, Sesame Street. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't too short. There's no criteria as regards how short an article is. The criteria merely asks for an article to be comprehensive, so if the article is comprehensive there isn't anything to worry about. It's just when an article is on the short side, conciseness isn't an issue because you can go into more detail. With longer articles of course, you summarise. With short articles though, you try to put in an as much relevant detail as you can. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that this little article does both: it summarizes the relevant details of the topic. It's kind of limited, since it's specifically about the structure of one TV show. It's a subtopic of a much larger one, but important enough to stand on its own, even with the limited sources about it specifically. Let the reviews begin! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, with regret, on comprehensiveness.Sesame Street has quite a presence in scholarly literature, none of which has been examined here. Likewise, this article doesn't address formatting differences in foreign-language versions of Sesame Street (possibly including the Open Sesameclip show). There's also no wider impact; for example, did other series adopt aspects of the Sesame Street format? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that The Show has had lots written about it in scholarly literature, and I, the main editor about most of the articles here, have extensively used it in articles about it all over WP. There hasn't been much written, however, in journals and in studies about the structure and format of Sesame Street. The scholarship about it has been included in other articles, especially Sesame Street research and Influence of Sesame Street. There's little about how the co-productions are formatted, and the few studies conducted about it have been included in Sesame Street international co-productions. And surprisingly, there's lots about how Sesame Street affected other shows, like my son's favorite thing in the entire universe Blue's Clues, but not about how it affected their structure. There is information in this article about how cable shows like BC and Barney and other societal events impacted Sesame Street, which I've included here, but nothing that I've found regarding the opposite. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There do seem to be some other sources that address these issues, though. I don't have convenient access to journal resources right now (stupid remote assignment), but it may be worth looking into some of the following: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Lesser, G. S. (1972). "Learning, teaching, and television production for children: The experience of Sesame Street." Harvard Educational Review 42 (2): 232-272.
Minton, J. H. (1975). "The impact of Sesame Street on readiness." Sociology of Education 48 (2): 141-151.
Palmer, E. L., Chen, M., & Lesser, G. S. (1976). "Sesame Street: Patterns of international adaptation." Journal of Communication 26 (2): 108-123.
Salomon, Gavriel (1974). Sesame Street in Israel: Its Instructional and Psychological Effects on Children. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. OCLC 609499834
I unfortunately have the same issue tonight, and have limitations while I'm on campus tomorrow, but I've looked at the abstracts of the above articles, which are familiar to me, meaning that I've seen them before. The above articles are about topics other than the one in question. Lesser's article is more about the show's educational goals and about research. Minton better fits in the research article, and the last two also belong there, as well as in the co-productions article. Also, much of the early research like the above have been summarized in G is for Growing (2001). The Lesser article could have content about the show's format; I'll look at it more closely tomorrow, during one of my breaks, but I suspect that I won't find anything new or substantial for our purposes, or for other SS articles here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I was able to access the above articles this afternoon and found that I was accurate about their subjects. As I stated yesterday, none of them applied to the topic of this article, not even the Lesser one. Actually, all of the content in that article, including Maurice Sendak's cartoons, is in his book, Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you pinged Squeamish Ossifrage lately to check on the current status of this oppose? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been unavoidably away from editing for a little while, so I hope I wasn't holding up the process here. Withdrawing my objection; although I would still prefer that some of the topics I commented on receive further examination in the article, the reality is that the sources do not afford that opportunity. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
How about a reference for the first paragraph of "Format Changes after the 1990s"?
You talk about increases in various age demographics, but this sort of underlined that we don't know what the demographic composition of the viewership is.
I'm sorry, I guess that's kind of obvious to me (the three-to-five year old child), which means very little to the initiated, I know. So I changed the word "demographic" to "audience", which had become younger.
The 33rd season was in 2001, right?
Thanks, you caught something I've actually tried to avoid in these articles. Actually season 33 was 2002-2003; citing the season instead of the year means little to those who haven't been watching The Show for years, so I've tried to avoid doing it. I've clarified. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Um yes, it's on PBS. I don't know why this would be important. I think a discussion about ads better fits in other articles; for example, the addition of corporate sponsorship is already discussed in the main article, in History of Sesame Street, and in Sesame Workshop funding sources.
Is the actual show one hour long?
Yes, that's mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the "Original format" section.
I thought I knew what a Sesame Street episode was like, but my memories may be decades old. Perhaps a more detailed description of the format of an episode is in order.
Um, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking for a "this happens, and then this and after that, this" kind of thing, I'm not sure that's warranted. The article already talks about the street scenes and the use of short films, sketches, animations, and "Elmo's World". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
All my issues have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness
OpposeComment - a good and interesting article, but feels like it could use some more work. After a first quick read the lead needs some improvements, sourcing and attribution should be tighter at a few spots and another copy-edit could improve the prose (some awkward phrases, problems with flow). Not a topic expert, but Squeamish Ossifrage's concerns about coverage need to be addressed as well (if usable sources exist on those aspects - if not, it's OK). Some examples:
I hope that I've addressed SO's concerns to everyone's satisfaction; like you state, I believe that I've exhausted all applicable sources.
"It utilizes the conventions of television, ..." => vague, what conventions specifically?
That's explained more fully in the article's body, but I went ahead and explained it more in the lead.
"Since its premiere in 1969, it was the first ..." => a bit odd to use "since" here for a first-time achievement (it won't change ever), maybe just "Premiered in 1969, ...".
I solved the issue, but it a different way.
"It was also the first to include a curriculum 'detailed or stated in terms of measurable outcomes'" => all quotes need immediate in-text attribution, MOS:QUOTE is quite strict about it.
I went back and re-checked for this, and am pretty sure that I addressed it.
Although not a full sentence, i tried to clarify the attribution a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"... was to create a children's television show that would 'master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them'" => which of the two previously mentioned persons said this? Or is the book quoted? Attribution unclear.
The problem was that the quote didn't appear anywhere else in the article, so I removed it and expanded the lead a little.
Same quote => The usage of this quote in such a prominent spot causes a slight WP:NPOV problem (too much and too prominent content presented from an involved view), it would be better to use a neutral third-party statement here (of course the quote could be used later in the main text to offer some personal background).
Dealt with above.
"At first, each episode was structured like a magazine, ..." => vague, what elements of magazine style specifically?
I've actually struggled with this concept in other articles. I've come to the conclusion that it's kind of an industry term, that needs to be explained, which I think that I've done in the body, along with linking it. The easy solution is to remove any reference to the term, but I've hesitated doing that because I think that most readers understand it as contrasted with a more narrative format.
Struck this point. While specifics are always better, "magazine" should be clear enough for most readers.
"... as a result of changes in their audience and its viewing habits ..." => vague, 1-2 brief specific details about those changes needed.
I believe I've been able to be more specific here now.
Improved - if you find any more details about this development, would be great to offer more context. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"The show expanded the new format to the entire show in 2002." => needs rephrase, show ... show
"Street scenes" => i would introduce the term once in the lead with quotation marks as a special term, but drop the quotation marks for later uses incl. header. It's (almost) a common term.
Original format "Despite its urban setting, the producers decided to avoid depicting more negativity than what was already present in the child's environment, but instead depicted the world both realistically and as it could be." => depict ... depict, also the whole sentence doesn't flow well.
Changed, I think it flows better now.
"... that would allow the producers to use a mixture of styles, paces, and characters. [It] allowed" => allow ... allow, "It" needs a more specific subject.
I went through the entire article and made corrections.
Street scenes "..., so significant changes were made." => source? Also vague, what kind of changes?
Obviously, it's unclear that I was about to explain, so I restructured the last two paragraphs in this section.
Format changes first para => source(s) for the last 4 sentences?
See ref 24.
Please double-check the whole article for repetitive prose, vagueness, sourcing and attribution of quotes. GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that I've now done this, and that things are improved as a result. Thanks for the valuable input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Struck oppose for now with the current improvements, thanks for addressing all points. I'll need another read to support and/or look for other minor points. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Images - all OK. Could you elaborate on the copyright status of the Muppet figures? Are the Bird and maybe Elmo copyrighted designs? (i thought, they were copyrighted, but have been wrong before)GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As I stated regarding other SS articles, the Sesame Workshop is very protective of its images, which is why there are more in this article. I believe that both the images here are free. The Big Bird image is from the Library of Congress and is in the public domain. The image of Kevin Clash and Elmo is in Commons. If they don't mass muster, I can remove them, if you tell me I should. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated both images for another check for copyright, as both license statements seem flawed. Let's see, what other image reviewers think - maybe we get lucky and they are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CONEXCEPT, the status of images on Commons is not subject to discussion here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Per FAC-criterion 3 and WP:COPYRIGHTall media has to be of acceptable copyright status, its usage here on en-Wiki is our responsibility. Maybe it would be best to move this general point to WT:FAC? GermanJoe (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we should. Media has an acceptable copyright status if it is marked as such on Commons. The copyright status of media on Commons may not be challenged here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I inserted a new image where the unacceptable one of Clash and Elmo was removed. It's from Commons; is it okay to stay? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this picture is even worse copyright-wise, it shows the puppet with no evidence of permission and Mr. Clash, and the original uploader admits, such photos were not permitted. But maybe i have some good news (fingers crossed):
 - Elmo photos at this NASA link should be within PD-USGov-NASA. See their image info, creator is noted as an employee of MSFC, the NASA Flight Center.
Actually, this is very good news! The NASA images can be used elsewhere, I'm sure, and you're right about the Big Bird image, so I swapped them out again. BTW, I just love the latter; not only does Mrs. Obama look very similar to Bird, she looks almost afraid of him! ;) Thanks, this is totally why we bring articles to FAC--to get assistance in areas in which we're weak, from others much more capable of finding solutions to problems such as this. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Done - both images under review have been replaced. New images are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - above points have been clarified. 2 minor points:
Consider adding History of Sesame Street (and maybe 1-2 other relevant Wiki-articles) to a new "See also" section for better navigation. I noticed, that the history article is not linked anywhere in the article.
Pending results of the image checks, but those checks will continue outside of this nomination anyway. I hope, someone else with more expertise will be able to judge the copyright background of these images. (Images have been replaced) GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Joe. I've added a "See also" section as per your suggestion. I agree; I'll allow others to evaluate the images. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - Looks like a fine FA to me. 和DITOREtails 20:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"It was the first time a more realistic setting, an inner city street and neighborhood, was used for a children's program, a choice writer. Michael Davis called "unprecedented"." The quote and unprecedented seems a little superfluous here, I think you can drop , a choice writer. Michael Davis called "unprecedented".
I'm not sure I agree, but I feel stronger that we should follow our reviewers' suggestions, so the phrase has been cut.
Is it the norm to capitalize Muppet?
Yeah. After all, "Muppet" is a fictional name. 和DITOREtails 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That is correct. "Muppet" is also a copy-righted term, and it's a term about a specific item. Capitalizing "puppet" would be incorrect, but Muppet is capitalized because it refers the puppets created and performed by Henson and his co-horts, thus the controversy about Yoda being a Muppet because Frank Oz performed him.
"they contracted out the animations and short films[note 1] to independent producers." any examples?
"The studio segments were written to concentrate on the African-American child, a key component of the show's audience" Why was this? To anybody not really familiar with Sesame Street it seems curious that an African-American kid is the key component.
They were focusing on the African-American child, and wrote much of their content to appeal to that part of their audience. Maybe I need to re-word? How about: "The studio segments were written to appeal to African-American children, who were an important part of their audience."
"Lesser called the producers' decision to defy the recommendations of their advisers "a turning point in the history of Sesame Street"" -by this stage I'd forgotten who Lesser is, can you add the first name again?
"By the 1990s, its dominance was challenged by other programs, and its ratings declined. " Such as?
"In 1998, a new 15-minute long segment," -inconsistency in numbers vs words, I'd rather digits for anything over nine but throughout you seem to mostly use words, so decide either way..
Went with numbers, and hope that I got 'em all.
Short but sweet, very clear and concise and of FA quality prose in my opinion, but admittedly overall my initial feeling is that I feel like something is missing. Looking about I see Educational goals of Sesame Street, and I really have a strong feeling that they should probably be merged to make this a more authoritative article. In fact if I had the choice I'd probably merge this into Educational goals of Sesame Street as format is one of the components of it. I'm not sure it is a strong enough topic on its own for FA, but if this could be refactored somehow with the educational article I think it would be a much stronger candidate. I'm not going to support or oppose for now, but I'll leave you to think about it and if anybody else here agrees with me I'd be interested to know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc. Hmm, I am not unopposed to doing something like this. However, it can be argued that this content would also fit in History of Sesame Street, but I'm opposed to putting it there because that article is already long, and adding this content may make it inaccessible. If you give me a good reason to put it there, though, I can be convinced. There's already a section about The Show's structure in the main article, Sesame Street, so there's historical reasons for this being a separate article, although there's nothing against either changing the format of the main article, or just leaving it as is. I'm willing to discuss this further. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would be sufficient to clarify the connection between format and goals in the "Educational goals" article, and keep the "Format" as a stand-alone article with only some basic context to other aspects like goals and history. Christine collected so much background information, that keeping the various aspects separate seems to be the better way. Size of the "Format" article seems fine to me, it isn't a huge topic per se. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll work on making the changes to the Goals article later today, since I anticipate it eventually coming to FAC as well. I think that the list of articles in the "See also" provides this article with context, but it anyone thinks that I should add context somewhere in the prose, I can. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - named ref "gikow-246" isn't defined anymore - probably got lost during some editing. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)