Talk:History of Sesame Street/GA1

GA Review

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

Responding to a request to do review. I've had a quick look, and this seems detailed and well sourced. I have adjusted the images in line with WP:ImageSize. I will do an initial review shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 08:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is very clear and readable. It is full of detail, with rich use of supporting quotes. However, while looking through for examples of balance, I noted this sentence: "Time Magazine reported that in response to criticism..." - but the only criticism mentioned in that section would be that "Mississippi voted to ban Sesame Street.", and I'm sure that is not what is meant!

   No, of course not! The criticism is described throughout the paragraph; that's why they made the changes. But you're right, it's not very clear. So I changed the sentence to: According to Time Magazine the producers of Sesame Street's made a few changes in its second season. --Christine (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead needs attention - the first paragraph goes into too close detail. A brief overview of the history would be welcome in the first paragraph with closer attention to key moments in the following paragraphs. Conformity in section headings would be welcome - initially there is a name and date in brackets, then a name with no date, and then simply dates.

   I saw your changes. I like the section headings better now. I went back and tweaked the lead some more. I see what you were trying to do, but I thought it was a little repetitious. I'm still not all that happy with it. Maybe after I'm better rested, I'll re-tweak it. I'm certain that when I get a couple of my Wiki-buddies to review/copyedit this article, it will be further improved. --Christine (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are plenty of cites, though mostly to books which are not available online, which makes checking more time-consuming. It is unfortunate that the first online cite I checked - the statement "based Oscar's character" didn't exactly match the source which says: "He got the idea for Oscar's gruff voice..." - this throws a doubt on reliability of interpretation of the book sources.

   Yah, that is pretty unfortunate. That's the trouble of using multiple sources with the same story; it's easy to get them confused. Sesame Street Unpaved uses language closer to my wording, so I changed the ref. I guess you're just gonna have to trust me about the rest. ;) On a serious note, though, there are plenty of WP articles that rely on books and other non-online sources. In this case, I had to depend upon those sources, and actually, that concerns me a bit, but for other reasons. I'm worried that this article will get pinged for relying too heavy on too few different sources. Much of this article is based upon Davis' marvelous book, and I have a feeling some reviewers (especially in FAC) will take issue with that. My explanation/excuse is that the Davis book is the only source exclusively about The Show's history, and its publication fills in bunches of information. It also leaves out some, too, but it's the best resource out there at the current time. --Christine (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

   I noticed the reliance on that source, and it would be nice for the credibility of the article as a whole to have a wider range of major sources, but that is not a GA concern so will not prevent the article passing. Where articles I am reviewing rely heavily on one book I do tend to get hold of that book before passing (or failing!) the article, though if there are other sources in the article and they check out, I would be content. Sadly, as I am not comfortable with the use of the word "glowing", I'd like to check that Newsday source. If I can't do that, then I'll need to get hold of the book to check out the use of that source, which would delay this review slightly (a few days for the book to arrive from Amazon).

   The source is directly out of the Davis book, p. 197. The exact quote: "Newsday recounted that 'scores of glowing newspaper and magazine stories fluttered down on Mrs. Cooney and her workshop like confetti onto the heads of conquering heroes'". And I'm very happy that I was able to help Mr. Davis sell yet another copy of his marvelous book. I'm sure you'll enjoy it over the upcoming Labor Day weekend. ;) On a serious note, though, I fully understand that this will probably be an issue at FAC. I'm also fully ready to fight for it, since there just are no reliable sources out there other than his book. Muppet Wiki has all the same information, but using it is against WP policy, as you know. There has been loads written about The Show, but very little written about the particulars of its history. Davis filled in an important gap in the SS literature. I think that I can sincerely state that I tried my best to use other sources, and when I found them, they were included. --Christine (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There is nothing substantial here on Sesame Street in other countries. The main article has a comprehensive history overview in the media section which is worth looking at.

   I don't think that this article is the place to discuss this. I think it better belongs in the main article or in its own article. SS in other countries is mentioned, though. And you should know that IMO, the section you mention really sucks. I'm currently in the process of overhauling that article, and I haven't gotten to the media section yet, so very little of the information there is sourced. One interesting item that could fit here, though, is the "controversy" caused by the HIV-positive Muppet character in the South African version. (Kevin Clash discusses it in his book.) I thought about it, but decided against including it here because I think it fits better over in the main article, either in the media section or in controversies and rumors (another section over there in serious need of re-editing). At any rate, I vote to keep it minimally mentioned here. --Christine (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

   Hmmm - if the article were to be renamed History of the production of Sesame Street in America then you needn't include coverage of other countries or of the presentation of the show in the various media, but as it is named History of Sesame Street then that would include the history of the show in other countries, and of the presentation of the show in the various media. Your comment does raise a question as to how exactly this article is meant to differ from the parent article. Do other TV shows have a separate History article? If I can see that the standard approach in such articles is not to cover the history of the presentation I would be reassured. I took a quick look and couldn't find anything.

   I suppose I simply took it for granted that the focus of this article is about the original American version of The Show. I added the following phrase to the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph: "The American children's television series, Sesame Street..." Perhaps that makes it clearer. I don't disagree that there needs to be a discussion about foreign versions somewhere, but I maintain that it doesn't belong in the scope of this particular article. The problem is that there simply isn't an adequate discussion of it anywhere, not even in the main article--not yet. I say not yet because I guarantee that there will be. I just haven't gotten that far over there yet.

   To answer your question, this article is very different than the main one. This article focuses on the important events throughout the show's long history, like Mr. Hooper's death in the 80s and the development of Elmo's World in the 2000s. These two events are/will be discussed in the main article, but in the context of other topics. For example, in the main article's "Format" section, I used the same information about The Show's 2002 structural changes that are used over here. That section, however, goes into more detail about the show's structure and format. (I haven't included the Mr. Hooper's death info yet because I anticipate that it'll go into the "Research" section, but I haven't been able to work on it yet.) And yes, there are comparable history articles. Have you looked at History of The Simpsons? It's a very similar article, about a show with a much shorter history but just as influential. I suspect that most of the information over here will eventually find itself over there. Sesame Street is a very complex article, even its current version. Its "Beginnings" section, is a summary of this article's first two sections. One of the next sections I intend on working on over there is "The Muppets", but it needs a great deal of research. I also believe that like I've done here, I may need to work on revamping The Muppets or even Jim Henson and then come back to Sesame Street and summarize. That's necessary, because Sesame Street would be too long otherwise. I'm sorry that this has turned into a discussion about the other article, and not this one; I wanted to avoid that, because I think this article stands on its own. --Christine (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I feel this article aims to be neutral; however, given that there have been criticisms ("Time Magazine reported that in response to criticism...") for the sake of true balance it would be worthwhile to have mention of them in the article. The main article contains this: "Since federal funds had been used to produce the show, more segments of the population insisted upon being represented on Sesame Street. For example, Latino groups criticized the show for having no Hispanic characters during its early years.[90] Organizations like the National Organization for Women (NOW) expressed concerns that the show needed to be "less male-oriented".[91] Members of NOW were "rankled by the portrayal of Susan, whom they saw as a subservient, powerless dispenser of milk and cookies".[97] The show's producers satisfied these critics by making Susan a nurse and by hiring a female writer.[91]"

   I see your point, but I feel that criticisms of the show are discussed throughout this article. For example, there's lots here about the show's structural changes in the early 2000s, and how it fell behind society during that time. The paragraph you cite above is almost word-for-word the same as the paragraph you mentioned above. There's a good reason for that; I wrote the paragraph here first, and then copied it, with some minor tweaks, over there. A "criticism" section (or really, to better follow MOS, "Critical reception") definitely belongs over there. As a matter of fact, the section over there is by no means complete. I have information from other sources to include; I just haven't had the time as of yet. But this GAC isn't about the main article; it's about this one, and I don't think a "Criticism" section belongs here. --Christine (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

   I agree that a Critical response section would be inappropriate. I am however a little concerned that the article overall appears to use praise quotes and praise words and praise ("glowing") rather more freely than critical quotes or words or examples, yet there appears to have been various critical comments during the show's history.

   I realize that I probably suffer from the same malady as Davis; I'm such an unabashed fan of The Show that I'm sure it comes through. However, I think that I balanced it pretty well. The Latino community and NOW's objections are cited, as are Ralph Nader's objections to the change in funding sources, as are the rating difficulties later on in its histories. I think that some of the opposition's views will be discussed, but over there in the main article. --Christine (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   So I'm going through these comments again, before I resubmit for GA. Perhaps the real issue here is this article's over-reliance on quotes. With Moni3's help, I believe that this is improved. You might have also noticed that over on Sesame Street, there is now a more expanded "Critical reaction" section, including information about Roosevelt Franklin. --Christine (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Several of the images do not have Fair Use rationale for this article

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some of the captions may not be succinct

   I have to admit, you hit upon two of my weakest areas as an editor: writing a decent lead, and images. I'll look into these things in the next couple of days, and I'll have User:Awadewit, who's an image guru, look at its images. --Christine (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

   So I have now completed making the requested changes to the images. They now all have fair use rationales, and I did my best to make the captions more succinct as you suggested. I have asked Awadewit to review them. That may take a little while, since she's taking a break in August. I think it's worth the wait, since she's good. I hope that doesn't hold up this article passing. --Christine (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Items to look into: Checking images. Rewriting lead. Inclusion of criticism. Broader coverage of history (other countries, media, awards). Double checking that statements are accurately supported by sources. Clarity of Time Magazine criticism. Section headings conforming with each other.

I think that I've addressed all the above. I'll tackle the images issues soon. Regarding awards: it's mentioned that The Show has won over 100 Emmys and 8 Grammys, but I wasn't able to find the specific awards it's won. You should know, though, that SS is due to win a "lifetime achievement" Emmy award in Sept., and I'm sure they'll name the exact number The Show has won. (That's why the number is more general here--"over 100 Emmys".) Forgive me for repeating myself, but I believe that some of your items above fit better elsewhere, like in the main article. --Christine (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An informative article - interesting and pleasant to read. Some items to tidy up, but I feel this should be able to pass GA when those matters are attended to. I'll look back in seven days, unless contacted before then. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SilkTork. My goal is to get this to FA before The Show's 40th anniversary in Nov., and we may be cutting it close. I'll take care of the images issue and get back to you. --Christine (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice the phrase "glowing" reviews in the lead. There is no online source to support this, it is sourced later in the text with this sentence: Newsday reported that several newspapers and magazines had written "glowing" reports about CTW and Cooney. which has the footnote: Seligsohn, Leo (1970-02-09). "Sesame Street". Newsday.. The word "glowing" appears to relate not so much to the show as to the production company. Did you access the Newsday article in a library, or find it online? I'd be interested to check it out - but if I can't, I'd feel better if the word was removed as it is rather enthusiastic, especially for a show which has apparently had some criticisms. I'm looking for a balanced and neutral tone for this article to meet: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias." Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It was from the Davis book, as stated above. If you like, I can remove the citation--ah, shoot, I just went ahead and did it anyway! I have a feeling that this could be an issue at FAC, so I may have to step into a library sometime soon. I also think that I may have to go ahead and actually write the "Critical reception" section in the main article, and see if I should incorporate it over here. If I promise to improve it for FAC, would you pass this article to GA now anyway? ;) I know that GAC is the first step in improving an article, and that it won't stop here, especially with my intentions to bring it to FAC. --Christine (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead is anecdotal rather than informative. SilkTork *^YES! 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But the dinner party story is well documented, in several sources. I dunno, I find it very informative, since it speaks volumes about the personalities involved and the times as well. --Christine (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   I have a slight issue with the anecdotal nature of the first paragraph in the lead.

   I'm still unclear about your issue, but I rewrote the first sentence anyway, to make it more formal: The history of Sesame Street begins in 1966, following a discussion between television producer Joan Ganz Cooney and her guests during a dinner party at Cooney's home in Manhattan. Her guests, which included Lloyd Morrisett, a vice-president of the Carnegie Foundation, discussed ways to "master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them",[1] namely, to help educate millions of preschool children and help them become ready for school. SilkTork, if your issue is the mention of the dinner party, I'm not sure I know how to help you feel better about these sentences. I mean, that's what happened; the creation of The Show is traced right back to that dinner party. Davis emphasizes the importance of it, and it's in other sources as well. --Christine (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   The online sources this time all check out. The book sources are carefully given with page numbers, so can be checked. Normally I would order one of the books and do a check, but I am aware that would take time, and the nominator is keen on a quick review. I'd like a second opinion on this.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I have an uncertainty that as currently structured if this could be considered broad. This matter has been raised and discussed, and I understand the points made. However, I'd welcome another opinion on this.

   B. Focused:

   I feel that some of the commentary on the early development leans to the anecdotal and potentially trivial - I'd be more comfortable with a crisper more business-like focus. But I may be asking too much; a second opinion would be welcomed.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is inclusion of critical commentary as well as (deserved) praise - and the praise is quoted and sourced rather than from the Wikipedia article

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   FURs have been provided

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think this is close, but I have a couple of quibbles which I'd welcome a second opinion on.

Second review done. I'm going to ask for someone else to look over my quibbles. SilkTork *^YES! 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Having got the second opinion, I'd like the issues regarding tone to be addressed. I'd like to see other countries covered, as well as history of presentation, and awards. The question of how this article is intended to be different to the parent article was also raised, and I'd welcome some rationale on what is meant to be the focus of this article and how it differs to Sesame Street. SilkTork *^YES! 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed most of these issues above. I found your second reviewer's comments, which took some doing, since he's blanked his talk page after being blocked. This concerns me, Silk. I'm not aware of all the circumstances surrounding his block, but I don't find much confidence in his assertions about this article as a result. Perhaps you can find a third reviewer? His review makes me wonder if he even read this article. For example, he states that Cooney takes up much of the focus of this article, and I beg to differ. The article goes into great detail about the personalities involved: Lloyd Morisette, Jon Stone, Gerald Lesser, Jim Henson, Joe Raposo, to name a few. Cooney, as this article makes clear, was instrumental in The Show's beginnings and then stayed in the background for the rest of her tenure as CTW's executive director. (To be honest, I found some of his comments about Cooney insulting, but that's a discussion for another time, I suppose.) Regarding the tone, I'll look at that again, and re-evaluate the encyclopedic tone of the current version of this article. I think that if it's a problem, it will probably be better addressed by other pairs of eyes, which will occur in the next step of its development, the peer review. --Christine (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse is a very experienced and highly valued reviewer for both GA and FA. The reasons for the block are totally unrelated to her review work which is widely regarded as among the best on Wikipedia. It's a shame this has happened as otherwise she might have been able to give you some assistance in getting this to FA - she loves helping get articles to FA status: User:Mattisse/Contributions/FA.

I'll take a look at what you've done, and if I still have concerns I'll do as you suggest and ask for another opinion. SilkTork *^YES! 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Substitute second opinion

SilkTork asked me to comment post Mattisse's block. I apologize for taking a few days to respond.

Thanks, Guy. I'm not the strongest writer in the world, so I require a great deal of help to get my pet articles improved. Bringing it to GA is the first step in that; my track record has proven that I've used other more talented and knowledgeable editors to bring them to FA. I know there's a great deal of work that need to be done with this article, so I appreciate the assistance.

This is an interesting article - there is much good material here - but I did struggle to get into it. One reason is that the prose quality is rather patchy. I know I can be a stickler for this, so I am hesitant to say that the article doesn't meet 1a. However, as the aim is to reach FA status within a couple of months, I will comment anyway.

The more help in the early stages, the better. My intention is to get this article tightened up so that when it's ready for FAC, it'll just sail on through. Personally, as far as GAC is concerned, I think that even with all the weaknesses, it's comparable to other GAs. I'll do my best to address your concerns, as long as you understand that the very next step in the process is a peer review, and I have some high quality editors who I know will help me. --Christine (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot to do. I recommend User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for general advice on prose. Here are some issues and examples.

• Omit needless words. For example: "During the production of Sesame Street's first season, the producers created five one-hour episodes, for the purpose of testing if they were comprehensible and appealing to children." Here "for the purpose of testing" could be replaced by "to test" or "to see". The sentence is also confusing because the test episodes were not part of Sesame Street's first season. "They found that children who viewed the show the most often did 62% better at correctly recognizing a rectangle than less frequent viewers." makes the same point twice with "most often" and "less frequent". The word "correctly" adds little. Also, what does "62% better" mean and why is this so precise when the rest of the sentence is so vague? There are multiple other examples of wordiness and confusing sentences.

  I went back to the source, to the Mielke article, and the reason why it's unclear here is that it's unclear there. I was attempting to summarize the research conducted during The Show's first season, and it was obviously a bad attempt. I solved the issue by using less specific example of how the research showed that viewing improves children's learning. It's my intention to go into more detail when I re-write/re-vamp the research section of the main article, so perhaps it will help improve things over here as well.--Christine (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it simple. In readable prose, each sentence conveys one idea. "Morrisett, who has been called Sesame Street's "financial godfather",[13] brought up how his three-year old daughter Sarah was intrigued by television, which was interesting to Morissett because as a vice-president at the Carnegie Institute, he had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, especially from poor and minority backgrounds." has so many subclauses that it is likely to make the reader's head spin. Similarly, what is the idea behind "With a budget of US$28,000 per episode, the show had reached 7 million children a day, the song "Rubber Duckie" was on the music charts for nine weeks, and Big Bird appeared on The Flip Wilson Show."? I guess it is that the show achieved remarkable early success given its low budget. That's tough to say in one sentence when both the budget and the success clamour for separate attention. Try two.

  I get your point. I revamped that entire paragraph, and even removed some things that were clunking things up. I also removed the clause about the show's budget and put it in another spot where perhaps it fits better. --Christine (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Select the right subject for each sentence. For example, in the sentence "The 1970s solidified the show's success, effectiveness of reaching millions of children and their families, and creativity.", the 1970s is not a good choice of subject: the decade itself was not responsible for solidifying the show's success. Sentences with an unidentified subject, such as "It was decided from the beginning to have a research presence while the series was being filmed in the studio.", are also hard to understand.

Fixed both sentences. --Christine (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Let your commas help the reader. For example, the serial comma is used a lot. This is largely a matter of taste, and can be helpful, but don't use it in cases where the reader might mistakenly think (even for a moment) that the second item is qualifying the first. "...was awarded an $8 million grant by Carnegie, the Ford Foundation, and the US federal government..." may suggest that Carnegie was founded by Ford. "...went on to lead the boom in children's programming at Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, and PBS..." is a similar example. "The American children's television series, Sesame Street, with its groundbreaking combination of Jim Henson's Muppets, animation, live shorts, and cultural references premiered on PBS on November 10, 1969, to "glowing" reviews, some controversy, and high ratings." illustrates another problem: the reader has to work hard to find the main clause ("The American children's television series premiered on PBS on November 10, 1969.") While this sentence has many unnecessary commas, the crucial one, after "references", is missing.

  This is obvious an issue throughout the article. Tell ya what: I'll go through it and look out for this in the next couple of days, when I'm better rested. This is me, trying to be impressive with my long sentences. The easy solution is to make long sentences shorter, and I'll do that in the next couple of days, I promise. --Christine (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A second issue is that there is much too much quotation. Quotation is a powerful device, as it transports the reader to the moment. Overuse diminishes its effectiveness. It should not be used as a substitute for paraphrasing secondary sources. Nor should it be used as a substitute for qualification: if a statement expresses a point of view, attribute it to the author expressing that viewpoint, instead of adding quotation marks. The most effective quotations are those of the protagonists themselves, and often they are quoted in the secondary sources, which means you have a good citation per 2b. However, once you start quoting the secondary sources themselves, you need to be more careful. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It does not synthesize or assemble new arguments.

• In my last FAC, the biggest complaint was that I tended to close paraphrase too much. For this article, it seems that I went to the other extreme--I used direct quotes to avoid close paraphrasing. Again, this is another issue I should address at another sitting. It looks like I'm going to have to go through the entire article and copyedit myself, which is what I'll do. --Christine (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This leads me to the main GA issue I found with the article. It is, at present, OR by synthesis. SilkTork and Mattisse have expressed similar feelings in a different way. The article is written from the point of view of the protagonists and borders on being a tribute to the show. An encyclopedic article should be written from a greater distance and describe the history from the outside perspective. It should rely heavily on the way secondary sources have described the history, and any synthesis should be dispassionate and reflect the consensus of the sources. That doesn't mean it has to be boring, and I have indicated above how a more sparing use of quotation can make an article interesting. A systematic attempt to fix the above specific concerns stands a good chance of fixing this general concern while retaining the spirit of the article.

I, like Michael Davis, am an unabashed fan of The Show. I was five when it premiered (oops, I just told all of WP my age!), the very demographic the producers were focusing on. My children, who are severely developmentally disabled, have been enriched by it in ways none of us can explain. So I might be a little biased myself, and I make no apologies about it. If I wasn't as emotional about how Sesame Street has affected my life, why waste my time improving its articles? That being said, I've tried my best to have some distance. Perhaps what I should've done is work on the "Criticism" section in the main article first, as SilkTork and I discuss above. One of the issues with any negative criticism of The Show is that there simply isn't a whole lot of it, or it's been pretty much discounted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (I had similar issues with The Wiggles, my first FAC.) I think that I have reflected the source's consensus. That being said, I agree that more copyediting needs to be done. To be frank, this is the first GAC I've ever gone through that has demanded a higher level of prose. My past experience is that it's left to the peer review and the FAC. I've learned from this, though; in the future, I'll switch the process and have it go through a PR and a copyedit before bringing it to GAC.

It would be great to see this on the main page on the 40th Anniversary in November, but there's an awful lot to do before then and I hope my analysis is helpful in that respect. Geometry guy 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been very helpful. I'm not so sure we can make it to November, but it's a good goal. We can at least get it it on the Main Page in the On This Day...section, right? ;) --Christine (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now completed a run-through/copyedit of this article. I think it solved a great many of the issues Geometry guy addressed above. I continue to stand by my assertions raised by Silktork about the international versions of The Show. I feel that other than the brief mentions in this article, this discussion best belongs in the main article. It's my intention to begin expanding upon the main article's "Critical reception", which will include criticism. That may or may not find itself here, but I request that this article be passed to GA on the good faith assumption that it will most likely be included here. As I've stated above, this article will be improved further as it moves towards FAC. --Christine (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You have made many improvements, and my view is that the article passes 1a for GA. I noticed in particular at least one case where I had not suggested a specific improvement, but you found a better subject for the sentence, which made it more active. Long sentences don't impress: active sentences do. Striking sentences tend to be short, rather than long. (Although if all sentences are short, the effect is lost!)

Anyway, I have made a bunch of edits to the lead just now to shake it up a bit. Feel free to revert my edit partially or in its entirety if the edits don't help. In any case, I hope some good copy-editors at PR will contribute, so that you don't have to do it all yourself. As I said above, I'm probably more sensitive about prose than the GA criteria require. It is inevitable that different issues will weigh more heavily with different reviewers: that is why we have WP:GAR. Each individual decision belongs to the reviewer who initiated the review. In this case, that is not me, so I will step back. Geometry guy 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   I have slightly reworded the opening sentences to prioritise the concept over the dinner party, but I have kept in the reference to the dinner party.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   I am still uncomfortable with the interpretation and write up of the sources. For example, I just changed "Although the series had been on the air for less than a year.." to the more neutral and accurate "In November of the following year..." (show premiered November 10, Time magazine article dated November 23).

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I accept that the issue of broad coverage is open to interpretation, however as another reviewer felt the same as me, I feel I cannot pass the article as it stands.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am aware that the nominator wishes this review to proceed speedily, however we have a disagreement about the interpretation of "broad coverage", and I am still uncertain regarding the use of sources (which I haven't been able to check yet, books still on order from my local library). As there is a stalemate regarding progress on the broad coverage issue I feel it more appropriate at this stage to close this as a Fail, and allow the nominator the choice of either tackling that aspect and then going for a new Review, or of going for another Review straightaway and seeing if a different reviewer has a different interpretation. There is also the option of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment in which my Fail can be overturned after discussion.

Close as Fail. My interpretation may be incorrect, but I can't in good conscience give this a pass if I feel it inappropriate. Another reviewer may interpret differently, so I have no objections to a WP:GAR or the nominator immediately requesting a new Review. SilkTork *^YES! 09:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)