Jump to content

Talk:BabyFirst

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trims

[edit]

I'll be helping bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards on BabyFirst's behalf while following WP:COI. I haven't researched or constructed any draft content yet, but first I wanted to suggest some cleanup to make room for encyclopedic material. In particular, the entire bottom half of the article from "Thinking Journey (Yellow)" to "Former Shows" I think can be removed as an indiscriminate list (or moved to a List article if you prefer). This is a more appropriate place for readers to find a list of shows.

Also, the company now goes by just "BabyFirst" without the "TV" in their name, so I'd suggest we move the article appropriately. Pinging User:Crisco 1492, as I often defer to him on article naming matters. CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

[edit]

I've prepared a draft GAN-ready article at User:CorporateM/BabyFirst. I was hoping a disinterested editor would consider incorporating the draft if they feel it would be an improvement for Wikipedia and its readers. In comparison to the current article, the proposed replacement:

  • Documents the debate about whether exposing babies to television is healthy (currently missing from the article entirely)
  • Incorporates several factual corrections. The current list of investors is incorrect. I have not found any sources regarding the channel being "briefly replaced with BabyTV"
  • Trims a lot of trivial information, such as pricing (per WP:NOPRICE), primary or unsourced content, etc. I tried to focus on its expansion into TV networks that have secondary sources (there are about 40 channels the station airs on and we can't reasonably list them all)
  • General improvements in sourcing and content (current article does not have a single strong secondary source)

If there's any way I can help make further improvements or questions about the draft, let me know! CorporateM (Talk) 04:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no discussion in over a week, I've completed this requested edit. After a second and third read-through I found no controversial material, and the article adheres to our polices as best I can tell. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there were broken refs, removal of categories, removal of navbox templates, use of & instead of just &, accessibility issues, and other minor problems. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:BabyFirst/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bentvfan54321 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. I'll be somewhat busy over the next couple of days, but I will certainly post some initial comments by the end of the week. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the main section of the article. I'm too busy right now to take a good look at the references and links, but I hope to have that done before the end of the weekend.

  • Given the length of the article, I'd suggest expanding the lead section from where it is now (three sentences) to maybe two paragraphs, or at least a longer single paragraph. See WP:LEAD for more information.
  • Change all instances of "Direct TV" to "DirecTV", and link its first appearance in the lead.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its first broadcast was on Mother's Day (May 11) 2006 through Direct TV. It was made available through EchoStar's Dish Network that June. " I'd suggest a change to something like, "The network was launched on May 11, 2006 on DirecTV and was later made available through EchoStar's Dish Network that June.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BabyFirst was controversial when it was introduced…" was the fact that it was the first network of its kind the only reason? Did anything else make the network controversial, and if so, is there a source to back that claim up?
The word "controversial" is from Citation 5, the Rocky Mountain News, which says "BabyFirst TV, a controversial." It does not explicitly say "controversial for _____" but it's reasonably apparent it's referring to "the first 24-hour network aimed at children as young as 6 months old." The New York Times source (citation 6) does not explicitly use the word "controversy" but also verifies that BabyFirst "became the first 24-hour cable and satellite network to offer programming aimed at viewers between 6 months and 3 years old" and the DirectTV bit. I don't think I would go as far as "first of its kind" - it was just considered the first to go quite as young as it did, but there were many TV programs aimed at babies before them. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This won't be enough to keep the article from reaching GA. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many instances of "In [year]" that are missing a comma after that phrase. For example, the last paragraph in the Distribution expansion section begins with, "In the early 2000s the Federal Trade Commission..." while the last sentence, which is correct, reads, "As of 2014, it has 81 million viewers…"
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and the former chairman of Disney TV Rich Frank…" I think it might read better if it was changed to "...and Rich Frank, the former chairman of Disney TV…"
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""decidedly unhurried". It makes extensive use of bright colors and upbeat music." I'd combine the two sentences to say something like, "The New York Times described the content as "decidedly unhurried" and argued that it makes extensive use of bright colors and upbeat music.
 Done Except I didn't use the word "argued" as it was just a description of the channel, as oppose to a position in a debate. I used "said" CorporateM (Talk) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An App available to AT&T U-verse viewers…" use a lowercase "a" in "app".
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some experts say", "Parents in-turn say", "BabyFirst says"… that seems like an overuse of the word "say". I'd replace most of those if possible, perhaps, "Some experts argue", "Parents in-turn refute that argument, claiming…" and "BabyFirst suggests"
 Not done Do you mind doing the honors? You may have seen my COI disclosure and this is one of those things where a COI often creates the appearance of impropriety, by using "claims" for viewpoints they want to discredit and "states" for POVs they want to support, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I'll take care of that. Give me a minute…" --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to The Washington Post very little is known…" insert comma between "Post" and "very".
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the prose looks okay, it just needs some minor cleanup. I'll take a look at the references within the next few days, hopefully sooner than later. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

General note: Make sure all the works in the refs are linked on their first appearances (e.g. link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 1 but not in ref 12).

 Not done If you feel strongly, I can do this, but I feel it's over-linking. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Again mot a requirement for GA, but this may come up at an FAC should you take it there. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the url in ref 15 with "http://variety.com/2008/more/news/time-warner-to-carry-babyfirst-1117985425/"

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 10, 23, and 27 all have urls ending with ".comews", while ref 4 ends with "ypost.com." Make sure those are fixed. Ref 18 needs an access date.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the refs look great with few problems and no major plagiarism concerns. Fix these issues and expand the lead slightly (doesn't have to be much), and I'll give it a pass.

Oh, one more minor thing. Link DirecTV in the lead section. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the article is strong enough for GA as all major issues have been resolved. Nice work, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

How about this for the Lead:

BabyFirst is a media company that produces and distributes content for babies through television, the internet and mobile apps. The content is intended to develop a baby's skills, such as color recognition, counting and vocabulary. There are about 90 BabyFirst TV shows and 41 apps for mobile devices. As of 2014, it is distributed to 81 million homes. The network is based in Los Angeles, California.
BabyFirst was founded in 2004 by Guy Oranim and Sharon Rechter. Its first broadcast was through DirectTV in 2006. It was funded by Regency Enterprises, Kardan, and Bellco Capital. Distribution expanded through agreements with the Echostar Dish Network, Comcast, AT&T U-verse and others. It also developed a premium BabyFirst YouTube channel, and mobile apps. One app developed with AT&T U-verse allows babies to interact with the television programming by drawing on a mobile device.
CorporateM (Talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

According to Rocky Mountain News, Bellco Capital, Regency Enterprises and Kardan were BabyFirst's early investors, which is probably why they were listed as owners in the Infobox. They are also listed as current investors here. Someone changed the listed owners to Ride On, Cerberus Capital Management and RTL Group without a source. Can someone revert it back to the correct owners confirmed by reliable sources? CorporateM (Talk) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I notice that the editor who changed that is on final warning so it might not have have been a good-faith edit. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BabyFirst. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BabyFirst&oldid=1205585099"