Talk:Sesame Workshop

Fair use rationale for Image:Sesame.gif

Image:Sesame.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CTW's "Third Alumni"?

The section "Gathering Talent" refers to "Sam Gibbon, CTW's third alumni." Huh? What in the heck does that mean? I assume you mean alumnus: alumni is plural. But even if you do mean alumnus, how could he have been an alumnus of the corporation before he joined the corporation? Do you mean "founding member" or something of that nature? If so, that's not what alumnus means. Figure out what you mean, and then say what you mean. As it is right now, it's complete and utter nonsense.

Tradeemarks/copyright for Muppets

Didn't Sesame Workshop finally buy the rights to all of the "Sesame Street Muppets" outright during the last Muppets reorganization? Since this includes all of the Sesame characters other than Kermit, it makes big crossovers of the type found in "Muppet Family Christmas" and "The Muppets Take Manhattan" far less likely in the future. If anyone has this information it should be included and cited. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sesame Street Unpaved

That syndication package only aired from 1999 and in 2002 when SW sold its imterests they took the show off Noggin (TV channel) Matthew Cantrell (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sesame Street Bias?

The article as it is currently written reads more like a history of Sesame Street, rather than a description and history of the Children's Television Workshop/Sesame Workshop. There are obscure references to "the show", without specifying which show (I assume it means Sesame Street). It also almost totally misses the other efforts in which CTW was involved. If it wasn't for the list-dump at the bottom of the article, and a glancing "oh, they did magazines too" reference or two, you would get the impression from the article that Sesame Street was all CTW/SW ever did. -- 76.204.101.11 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything CTW/SW is involved in is based on Sesame Street. If you've got additional information, or can copy edit to make the focus more to your liking, please do it.--RadioFan (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CTW/Sesame Workshop logos

The current Sesame Workshop logo does not include the "house" in the logo. The logo just has the text "Sesame Workshop" in lowercase letters. The first Sesame Street logo kinda creeps me out. Please take it off. 24.183.52.110 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no! Now the third logo when it just pops up right away. 24.183.52.110 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Merchandising section

While this section needs some copy editing, it should remain as a section in the Sesame Workshop article. This article isn't long enough to force separating sections and CTW/Sesame Workshop licensing efforts are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. --RadioFan (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the current content isn't worth it's own article. But there are pages upon pages of information about how licensing has not only supported, but indeed saved the show multiple times, when other funding runs dry. It's a very important topic to Sesame Street, one that deserves its own section, separate from general info about licensing for Sagwa, Ghostwriter, etc. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep it in the Sesame Workshop article, it supports the company and isn't terribly notable on its own. There is significant coverage in 3rd party sources on Seasame Workshop but not on its merchandising efforts.--RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Advisory board

I've taken on improving Sesame Street and some related articles, and in my research, I've found something that probably should be added here. In this article's current state, however, I'm not sure where it belongs, so I thought I'd take the easy way out and simply place it on this talk page. I agree with the anonymous IP's estimation of this article above; some of the information here doesn't really fit. This article should probably be re-edited at some point, something that I'm not willing to do at the current time due to time constraints and commitment to other articles. Perhaps it will happen someday in the future. An example of what I'm talking about is that there's nothing about the structure of the SW as an organization. Gerald Lesser's book, Children and Television, talks about the early days of The Show and CTW. This article needs to include that information. I include what he says here about the National Board of Advisers, which he founded and chaired, for use at a later time. The wording of the below is just a suggestion, so it can be changed in any way.

Lesser states that unlike most advisory boards, which acted to simply "kosher a product created by others" (p. 43), CTW's board contributed substantially to the project's (i.e., Sesame Street) design and implementation. This shocked many of the board's first members, but they followed this suggestion, which was made by Cooney. One of the first things they did was direct Lesser to lead the curriculum seminars in the summer of 1968 (Lesser, pp. 43-44, see footnote on p. 44 for list of the original Board of Advisers). Christine (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing in the same vein as above, Lesser also reports in his book that the CTW established a Research Advisory Board, made up of researchers and child development experts. The purpose of this board was to provide CTW researchers with objective consultation with other experts, to help them set priorities, and to monitor their research activities (Lesser, p. 163). Christine (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SW "model"

There has been much said in the Sesame Street literature about the SW/CTW "model", and that should be included in this article. According to Lesser, the main features of this model include "some important assumptions about children and how they learn from television, the priority given to high-quality production, and an organization that fostered mutual confidence among its members" (p. 239). Christine (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More about the model: I'll just reproduce it here and we'll sort it out later. From: Cooney, Joan Ganz (2001). "Foreward". In "G" is for Growing: Thirty Years of Research on Children and Sesame Street, Fisch, Shalom M. and Rosemarie T. Truglio, eds. Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. ISBN 0-8058-3395-1.

"There can be no question that the personalities, patience, and know-how of two of the original architects of CTW research, Edward Palmer and Gerry Lesser, were critical to winning the hand of the production department. (Although in all fairness and with great warmth, the receptivity of our producers to research input, in their very gameness in agreeing to try a new model for producing shows, remains one of the cornerstones that CTW built.) (p. xii). Christine (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another definition of the SW model (from G is For Growing, p. xvi): "This unique, ongoing integration of curriculum development, formative research, and summative research into the process of production has come to be known as the CTW model". Christine (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice quote

Davis has a nice quote about the start of CTW, taken from a New York Times article written after CTW's first press conference in 1968, which he describes on pp. 127-131. It should be incorporated somehow into this article, including possibly looking for the original article on the internet. Davis' source is: Jack Gould, "TV: Focus on Programming for the Disadvantaged Child," New York Times, March 22, 1968, p. 95. I would add it, but I don't want to spend the time right now. Here's the quote: "Michael Dann, vice president of the Columbia Broadcasting System, hailed the workshop as conceivably one of the most important breakthroughs in the evolution of the mass medium" (Davis, p. 130). Christine (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

History section

When was the name changed? The article states New Year's Day, but which year? Nutster (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean when did the CTW change its name to the SW, the Sesame Workshop. All the sources I've been able to find states that it happened in 2000, but nothing about the exact day. Here's a source that states it: O'Neil, William J (2003). Business Leaders and Success: 55 Top Business Leaders and How They Achieved Greatness. New York: McGraw Hill. p. 147. ISBN 0-0714-6809. This book has a chapter about Cooney which can be very useful, and it's on Google books. I've also never been able to find the Workshop's reason for changing their name, not even in Davis and Gikow, two of the most recent books written about SW and The Show. WP policy states that we're not supposed to use websites generated by the subject of the article, but there are exceptions. I think that this is one of them. Perhaps there are at least press releases explaining the reason for the change. Further research definitely needs to be done on the name change. Christine (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked on the Sesame Workshop website, among others, trying to find an answer before posting here. The earliest press release on the site is from 2004 and the company was already called Sesame Workshop at that point. Nutster (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that just so weird? You'd think that with such a major change, there'd be some more about why they did it. There's been so much written about The Show and The Workshop, and almost nothing about that? I suggest doing a thorough web search about it. I have other stuff on my plate, so I'll delegate that task to you, Nutster, if you wouldn't mind. ;) If you can't, let me know. Christine (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article [1] on Muppet Central, which states is from Reuters. That's a good website to start from in doing much SS research, so it may help. Christine (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article is on my very-long and ever-expanding list of Sesame Street-related articles I'd like to tackle. Like I've done for other articles, I'd like to have a clearinghouse of possible sources here on the talk page. See below.

• Street Gang (book), by Michael Davis
• Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street, by Gerald S. Lesser
• Sesame Street: A Celebration— Forty Years of Life on the Street, by Louise A. Gikow
• Jim Henson: The Works: the Art, the Magic, the Imagination, by Christopher Finch
• "G" is for Growing: Thirty Years of Research on Children and Sesame Street, by Fisch et. al
• The Tipping Point (book), by Malcolm Gladwell
• Sesame Street and the Reform of Children's Television by Robert W. Morrow
• Women Pioneers in Television: Biographies of Fifteen Industry Leaders, by Cary O'Dell

I also recommend fishing through Sesame Street and History of Sesame Street for pertinent information, especially about history. Christine (Figureskatingfan)(talk) 23:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

About Noggin

Low ratings didn't cause the Workshop to sell its half to Viacom Media Networks, they did however cause Noggin to change its format/target audience. MuppetCentral states that Sesame Workshop needed money to pay back to EM.TV, and they signed an agreement that Viacom's Nickelodeon would fully own the network beginning August 7, 2002 Matthew Cantrell (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Renamed From CW To Sesame Workshop

On June 5, 2000. CW Was Changed to Sesame Workshop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:8400:5ACD:5043:8CBB:9DF1:D91 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Re-write and re-vamp

As I've mentioned previously on this talk page, I've had my eyes on this article for a few years now, but have never had the time and/or inclination to take it on. I feel ready to do so now. After re-reading it tonight, I've come to the conclusion that this article needs a complete overhaul, meaning that its entire content needs to be replaced by well-sourced and well-written content. I basically need to compile all the information from every source available and re-write this entire article. Fortunately, I have access to most of the salient sources about the Workshop; plus, I need to look for more information in journals and other sources. IOW, I need to do some research, and I'm stating my intention to do so now. This is potentially a huge project, one with my limited time, may take several months. I'll keep everyone posted as to my progress. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've been able to do as I promised/threatened above, and am currently in the process of moving the new version from my sandbox to userspace. I think that the result is a much stronger article that better reflects the sources and is fitting of such an important organization. Something has come up, however, which I expected. Notice that in the new "Early years" section, I placed a template that refers to Sesame Workshop funding sources. I wonder if the funding sources article should be merged into this article; without the background and introductory sections there, which repeat much of the same information in this article, it wouldn't make this article all that much longer, anyway. I also think that it would take care of some of the issues about the funding sources article, some of which were brought up in its successful GAC. Its GA reviewer, after recommending that the article name change (which happened), demonstrated that it wasn't comprehensive enough. I suspect that the reason for that is that the content better belongs here. Consequently (and I'll put a note over there referring to this discussion), I suggest that we merge the funding sources with this article. I suspect that I'll get very little response, but I thought that I'd bring it up in the interest of full disclosure. If there's no major disagreement in a week or so, I'll go ahead and do the merge. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: History "In 1968, Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, came up with the idea … hired a staff of producers and writers." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 1.1: Background "In 1968, Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, came up with the idea to form an organization to oversee the production of Sesame Street, which would, through the medium of television, help prepare children, especially those from low-income families, for school." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Fixed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Major Point 1.2: Founding "They spent two years researching, developing, and raising money for the new show. Cooney was named as the Workshop's first executive director, which was called "one of the most important television developments of the decade".[1]" & "Sesame Street premiered on PBS in November 1969, and the Workshop was formally incorporated shortly after, in 1970. Gerald S. Lesser and Edward L. Palmer were hired to conduct research for the show; they were responsible for developing a system of planning, production, and evaluation, and the interaction between television producers and educators, later called the "CTW model". They also hired a staff of producers and writers." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Early years "After the initial success of Sesame Street, they began to plan for its continued survival, which included procuring additional sources of funding and creating other TV shows. They expanded into other areas, including unsuccessful ventures into adult programs, international co-productions, licensing arrangements, and outreach programs to preschools. The 1980s was a challenging period for the Workshop; difficulty finding audiences for their other productions and a series of bad investments hurt them until licensing agreements stabilized their revenues by 1985." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 3: Later years "Cooney stepped down as CEO in 1990; David Britt was named as her replacement. In 2000, the CTW changed its name to Sesame Workshop, to better reflect its entry into non-television and interactive media, and Gary E. Knell became CEO. H. Melvin Ming replaced Knell in 2011." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 4: Funding sources "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 4.1: Publishing "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 4.2: Music "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 4.3: International co-productions "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 4.4: Interactive media "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Added new paragraph as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: History "In 1968, Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, came up with the idea … hired a staff of producers and writers." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.1: Background "In 1968, Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, came up with the idea to form an organization to oversee the production of Sesame Street, which would, through the medium of television, help prepare children, especially those from low-income families, for school." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.2: Founding "They spent two years researching, developing, and raising money for the new show. Cooney was named as the Workshop's first executive director, which was called "one of the most important television developments of the decade".[1]" & "Sesame Street premiered on PBS in November 1969, and the Workshop was formally incorporated shortly after, in 1970. Gerald S. Lesser and Edward L. Palmer were hired to conduct research for the show; they were responsible for developing a system of planning, production, and evaluation, and the interaction between television producers and educators, later called the "CTW model". They also hired a staff of producers and writers." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Early years "After the initial success of Sesame Street, they began to plan for its continued survival, which included procuring additional sources of funding and creating other TV shows. They expanded into other areas, including unsuccessful ventures into adult programs, international co-productions, licensing arrangements, and outreach programs to preschools. The 1980s was a challenging period for the Workshop; difficulty finding audiences for their other productions and a series of bad investments hurt them until licensing agreements stabilized their revenues by 1985." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Later years "Cooney stepped down as CEO in 1990; David Britt was named as her replacement. In 2000, the CTW changed its name to Sesame Workshop, to better reflect its entry into non-television and interactive media, and Gary E. Knell became CEO. H. Melvin Ming replaced Knell in 2011." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Funding sources "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4.1: Publishing "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4.2: Music "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4.3: International co-productions "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4.4: Interactive media "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Fixed as per above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Sesame Workshop (SW, or "the Workshop"), formerly known as the Children's Television Workshop (CTW), is a worldwide American non-profit organization behind the production of several educational children's programs, including its first and most well-known, Sesame Street, that have run on public broadcasting around the world (including PBS in the United States). Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER) Fix "In 2011, Knell left the SW to become the chief executive at NPR; H. Melvin Ming was named as his replacement. Ming had been chief financial officer since 1999 and its chief operating officer since 2002.[65]" in the Reception section. I think you mean "Later years". I combined the last two paragraphs; I hope that's what you're asking me to do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with the other FAs – Format of Sesame Street, History of Sesame Street, Sesame Street & Sesame Street research)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done (Thorough check on Google in parallel with criteria 2. Cross-checked with the other FAs – Format of Sesame Street, History of Sesame Street, Sesame Street & Sesame Street research) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (PD) (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
• The lead says "In 1968, Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, came up with the idea to form an organization to oversee the production … " while the Background section in the History says "In the summer of 1967, Cooney took a leave … reported her findings … and proposed the creation of a company that oversaw its production, which eventually became known as the Children's Television Workshop (CTW).[7]" (1a issue: is it 1967 or 68?)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Christine, please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article, which is our main aim here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I believe that I've addressed all your concerns; please tell me if I've overlooked anything. And thanks for the review! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 20:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 20:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible good source

Ironic, given the just-closed FAC: [2] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

HBO deal?

Shouldn't this comprehensive featured article include the January 2016 exclusivity deal Sesame Workshop made with HBO (that was covered in the Sesame Street article)? —Prhartcom♥ 03:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As of 2021 there is now a section titled "The HBO/Warner Bros. Era (2015–present)" which mentions neither HBO nor Warner.212.202.181.136 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The Joan Ganz Cooney Center into Sesame Workshop

Encyclopedic content can be covered within the scope of the merge target, and would address the issues with the current article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, on the grounds that the centre seems to have sufficient independent sources to support an article, even if the existing page needs a prune. Using a merge as a surrogate for fixing a problem seems like a back-door method; it's better to just fix it. A merge of poor content to a featured article is also against the interests of readers. Klbrain (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, what @Klbrain said. I agree that this merge would compromise the integrity of the merge target. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is No Move. Removing tags. TRL (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)