Talk:Elmo's World/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Christine (Figureskatingfan)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As usual, this article is throrough, complete, full of excellent prose, and meticulously sourced. I have identified a few issues that should be addressed (some more important than others). Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
All issues are resolved.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
No problems.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
All issues are resolved.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
All issues are resolved.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Glad to promote. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a You have an end-quote after "come to life", but no begin quote. (This error occurs again in the "Development and filming" section.)

Both quotes in both sentences are supported by ref 1; I know that some reviewers prefer references after each quote, so I don't mind adding it. Done.

No no, sorry if I wasn't clear. The text doesn't need an extra cite; It needs an open quotation mark. (I have no opinion about the duplication of a citation for two quotes in one sentence.) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the quote appears on the same page in Clash's book but not in the same sentence. It's a compound idea. I think that my solution is adequate.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citing is not a problem (either way). The problem is exclusively with the quotation marks (punctuation) in this paragraph. Here is the entire paragraph in the lead, with quotation marks substituted for bolded descriptors:

Long-time writer Judy Freudberg came up with the concept of [OPEN QUOTE]Elmo's World[CLOSE QUOTE], and writer Tony Geiss and executive producer Arlene Sherman helped develop it. Instead of the realism of the rest of the show, the segment presented Elmo moving between and combining two worlds of live action and computer-generated animation, which looked like a child's squiggly crayon drawing come to life[CLOSE QUOTE][1] created by the host, and with [OPEN QUOTE]a stream-of-consciousness feel to it[CLOSE QUOTE].[1] Elmo's pet goldfish Dorothy and the members of the Noodle family were silent in order to allow Elmo to do all the talking, and to give children the opportunity to respond to what they saw on the screen.

The problem is that the "...drawing come to life" quote ends with a quotation mark, but I can't tell where it begins. See what I'm saying? (The same problem exists in the "Development and filming" section.) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what you're talking about. Duh, sorry for my denseness. It was just a silly typo; corrected now by placing the starting quotation in the correct places. Thanks for the catch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a The lead mentions "two other important characters": "Elmo's pet goldfish Dorothy and the members of the Noodle family". That sounds like more than 2 characters. (This is repeated in the "Characters" section.) Perhaps "all other important characters" would be better?

I've decided, after looking at it again, that I don't like how that's worded, so I cut the "important characters" mention. I think it's much more clear now. Thanks for the catch.

I like your wording choice better. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a The lead says "to increase their lower ratings" (and later, "reasons for the show's lower ratings"), but that isn't 100% clear. Lower than what? The "Background" section later makes it clear. Still, I think it would be better in the lead to say: "It premiered in late 1998 as part of the show's structural changes, designed to appeal to younger viewers and increase ratings, which had fallen in the past decade." (I believe that's clearer, and it resolves some minor grammar nitpicks as well.)

I agree. Done as you suggest.

Do you think Format of Sesame Street will continue to be the main article for the "Background" section? I remember there was talk of a potential merge...

Yes, that's right; it was discussed, in its FAC. I started a draft, as well as discussion about it: User talk:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street Sandbox 2. So far, only User:Dr. Blofeld has participated, which I don't think is enough. If you'd like to participate, please do so.

1a I don't think a comma is needed after "began to be challenged throughout the decade".

Ok, done.

1a I think it would be better to break up the long first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of "Background". Might I suggest this? For the first time since the show debuted, the producers and a team of researchers analyzed Sesame Street's content and structure and studied how children's viewing habits had changed. This analysis was conducted during a series of two-week long workshops and was completed in time for the show's 30th anniversary in 1999.

I like to avoid the word "this", so I replaced it with the word "the". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a In my opinion, the final sentence of paragraph 2 of "Development and filming" should be reworded slightly. I would suggest the following: For more complicated shots that showed Elmo's entire body, a puppet called "Active Elmo" was operated with assistance from other puppeteers; this was also filmed in front of a blue screen and edited later.

Sure, done so.

Great. Though you might prefer "the puppet" over "this". :) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He he, such a card you are. Changed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a When Joey Mazzarino is quoted in "End of production", a "was" is duplicated.

Yikes, you're right! Removed the second "was". Thanks for the catch.

1a In my opinion, the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of "End of production" would be better reworded as: In 2012, "Elmo's World" was replaced by "Elmo the Musical" in order to appeal to their now-older audience and to give their puppeteers new challenges.

Done as suggested.

1a In the very last sentence, "on DVDs" would be more consistent within the sentence than just "DVDs".

Right again, and thanks again for the catch.

2b Footnotes 4 and 5 need to be cited.

Done for fn 5. For fn 4: there's no one source that states that all Noodles won Tonys. Did you want me to add all the sources that state it, though?

Hm. I suppose that depends on whether the claim counts as "statistics ... likely to be challenged" or not. I'll leave that up to you. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that it constitutes as statistics not likely to be challenged. I can see someone having a different perspective about it, though, but since we're both okay with keeping it as is, that's what I think we'll do. If someone does challenges it somewhere along the way (which I doubt, since I probably won't bring this article to FAC), it's easy enough to add. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2a The Fisch & Bernstein source gives page numbers in the "Works cited" section. None of the other sources do this, and since pages are provided in the "Notes" section anyway, I think it would be best to omit pages in the "Works cited" section.

Wow, now that's a great catch! Something left-over from other Sesame Street articles that use the same source. Thanks!

6 Are there no free images that would improve this article?

Actually, the weird thing is that when I submitted this to GAC, there were none; at least none that I liked well enough to put here. Since then, I've found some that may be suitable. I've already added the Elmo image, but I reverted the images I put in of the actors who have played the Noodle Family because I didn't like how it changed the article's appearance. I'll come back when I have more time and work on it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Elmo in the space shuttle is adorable. Would you like me to make a composite image of the three Noodle actors? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly put one in. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that boldness! Thanks for dealing with it; one of my weaknesses is formatting and all the technical stuff. I love how we make up for each other here, and how this is yet another example of the collaboration that makes this project great. It's all so Sesame Street-y! ;) I also see that you added the composite image at Mr. Noodle, which I also appreciate. At any rate, I believe that I've addressed all your feedback now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do happen to enjoy technical stuff in articles, particularly images and reference formatting. If I can help you with that in any articles you're working on, please just let me know. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know it, pal! Hey, I always take people up on their offers. I appreciate your willingness to help, and you know that I'll keep you in mind. Also know that I'm always here for you, too. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final result

This article passes all our GA criteria with flying colors, and I'm glad to promote it to GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]