Talk:Plaza Sésamo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 18:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main issue, gives the impression that there were only ever four seasons, that if you turned on Sprout and watched an episode, it would be from 1994, in SD, with a new logo. (Since each of the first three seasons were less than 150 episodes, it also gives the impression that season 4 had more than 500 episodes, to get the series over the 1K marker.) According to Muppet Wiki, they're on season 15. I don't expect seasons 5 through 15 to be covered in depth, but they should be mentioned. Worst case scenario, you've already cited press releases, and I know there were releases for the last few seasons. That said, there must be a news article here or there.

I was following the reliable sources I was able to find. I agree that for comprehensiveness sake, we need to use PRs, so I added information from SW. I won't use Muppet Wiki as a source, as much as I like and use it for personal use. I think that what I've added satisfies your requests, though.

Yes, the most recent seasons were the key to proving it's on-going. (Didn't mean to give the impression of suggesting that you use Muppet Wiki as a source, that wasn't my intention.) -- Zanimum (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I see you've made a further edit to the logo caption. It's now harder to understand than the original format, it seems like a direct contradiction now.
For the number of episodes, would "over 1000" or "1000+" do? I've never seen question marks replacing digits on Wikipedia.
Sesame Workshop as production company, "(2000-2009 or present)"... I'm missing what this refers to. On first go, it reads as if there was a break in production, but the or is confusing.
PBS Kids Sprout: perhaps the answer would be in the Wayback Machine?

This is why I personally don't care for infoboxes. I removed all the information that isn't in the article.

Lead

WP:MOS frowns on starting a sentence with a numeral, like 130

Fixed.

Passing "Background".

Production

"The board was responsible for choosing": I'd suggest expanding this reference to the full title of advisory board; you mention them two paragraphs later, but until then there should be something to keep people sated.

Got it.

I'm not sure about starting a paragraph/sentence with the numeral of 130.

Same solution as above.

Sidenotes
- Interesting that they had the pilot character to connect the video remotes, so far before Global Grover.
- I love that the Sesame franchise can attract renowned architects to design their sets.
"the first time an original co-production was shown in the U.S.": was Shalom Sesame not considered a coproduction because it was produced in the US?

I'm not sure. When I get to working on the Shalom Sesame article, I'm sure I'll find out. The sources state that Plaza Sesamo was the first one aired here.

Does the series still air on select PBS affliates? Or is it just Sprout in the US?

Again, I dunno. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources. I've just decided: someone needs to write a book about the history of the co-productions, with interesting stories about all of them! ;)

Any info on production since season 4? Any indication how many seasons have been produced in the two decades since the reboot?

And again, I wasn't able to find any information. Google doesn't even bring up articles in Spanish, but if it did, I wouldn't be able to use them since I don't know Spanish. Unfortunately, there's very little information about these co-productions in both the U.S. and foreign press, so that limits what we can do here. As a result, comprehensiveness suffers. This is why very few of these articles will get past GA. I submitted this one to GAC because I think that it satisfies the GA criteria.

More later. Sorry this is taking so long, but this is now a priority. Zan, you need those GA Cup points! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

"Highly significant difference were found" --> "Highly significant differences were found" or "A highly significant difference was found"

Oops, went with the former.

There's no other articles or webpages about the park? Particularly something referring to it as closed? While I agree wholeheartedly it is closed, it would help justify the past tense.

It still exists; I was trying to be consistent, although I can see how the tense use could be confusing. Changed tenses to present. I also added the park's website to the "External links" secction.

Whatever's being referred to by "technology" is likely covered in the interactive elements.

Good point. Removed "technology" from the list.

Passing "Notes", "References", "External links", categories.

Separate from this review, but related... there was vandalism to Template:Sesame Street, I've reverted to the last good version. That said, I don't know if it's worthwhile having a redlink for Ryan Dillon. He's done no media since being hired as Elmo, and I don't know if they've even officially made a hiring statement. It's fair to assume they even have something in his contract saying he's got to stay as far behind the scenes as possible. Redlinks are only really good for when there are RSs that are ripe for use.

The purpose of redlinks is to encourage the creation of new articles, and since Dillon really should have an WP article, even if it's just a stub, so I think it should remain. Most of the puppeteers have very little press about them in general. Clash was the exception, and that might have been part of the problem. I'm not in any position to speculate about Dillon's employment status. At any rate, I'll try and create an article for him soon.

The article easily passes Checklinks. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum:, thanks for the review! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, seems solid now. Pass! -- Zanimum (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]