Talk:Sesame Workshop funding sources/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review on this article

Review discussion

Even though about 2 1/2 years have passed since Christine's October 2010 comments, many of the issues still seem present. After reading the article twice, I still don't know what the topic is. At first I thought it was the name of a business entity, but now I'm thinking not and that maybe it refers to all of the media produced by Sesame street. But then, media is what Sesame street produces.

The article seems to be coverage of the history of the media types that they have developed, worked with, with a focus on the business and marketing rationales and approaches. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, I believe you have a good point. I wonder, then, if the solution would be to re-name the article. Its current title is kind of a historical artifact; originally, much of the content was in a section of Sesame Street. I created a new article, removed much of it because it was unsourced, expanded it with reliable sources and more appropriate information, and improved it. I think what it's really about are the extra funding sources that The Show and the Sesame Workshop have used. What do you think about the obvious: Funding sources of Sesame Street? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a name change would be a good idea. Regarding a recommendation, there are some important things that I don't yet know, and so let me start with a few questions and random thoughts for discussion:

Does CTW/Cesame Workshop exist to support the TV show, or is the TV show just one of many endeavors which it wants do do, (i.e. even if they didn't make money)?
Similar question in a different format: Are all of these other ventures just to support the TV show, or are they missions in and of themselves?
Similar question in a different format: Is their quest for fund just to support the TV show, or is it to support other endeavors?
So one question will then arise/be answered is: Are these Sesame Street funding sources, or are they CCW/Sesame Workshop funding sources?
Chicken and the egg question....should it be: #1 Decide/note that the content scope here is what the article should cover, and then come up with a title that follows that, or #2 Try to figure out what the topic/scope should be based the other Sesame articles, and then make the content and title here match that?

Sincerity, North8000 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent questions, which needed to be asked by a non-involved third party, which is the reason for reviews in the first place. The Workshop exists to support the show, and after its first year, its other productions. I can see how one can say that this article is more about the Workshop than about Sesame Street. (Sesame Workshop is in dire need of improvement, something that's on my to-do list but haven't had the time or inclination thus far. I think we may be at the point when it needs to happen sooner rather than later.) For this article, I wanted to avoid the Workshop's conflicts with the U.S. federal government over funding because I think it better belongs in the Workshop's article and not here. I may be wrong about that, though, at least in the sense that there needs to be something about its early conflicts. What do you think about that? If we agree, should the title be "Sesame Workshop funding sources"?

At first, the Workshop existed solely to support Sesame Street, but it changed when they decided to branch out and produce other shows--after Sesame Street's second season, Electric Company. I was trying to avoid mention of that show and of the Workshop's subsequent productions, but with the new focus, I should at least mention it, since it was the motivation to get additional funding sources. If we change the focus, I think that was this article is really about is how they used Sesame Street licensing and other productions and endeavors to support their other projects. I thought that the fact that the Workshop used the sources to fund other endeavors wasn't clear, so I added a phrase that clarifies it, like this: Licensing became the foundation of, as Gikow put it, the Sesame Workshop endowment,[9] which had the potential to support the CTW and fund other productions. It also looks like I'm going to have to do more, and slightly re-vamp the prose here to reflect the change in focus, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the title "Sesame Workshop funding sources" would be good. That could raise a quandary about covering projects which might exist for their own right, but one could say that the goal for other projects would be to run in the black, and so covering the business angle of them would be appropriate here.

If that's the title, then I would say that any funding disputes (e.g. with the federal government) should be covered. BTW, I'm a dummy on this topic. Most of what I know is from reading this and other Sesame Wikipedia articles today. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and move the article now. I think that as I improve and expand Sesame Workshop, more information would be added. It's certainly not comprehensive for FA, but I think it's adequate as a GA. The purpose of all of the activities currently discussed here is to fund The Show, so I think it's okay. We may need to change the title again, to "Sesame Workshop business endeavors" or something like that. Your comment made me smile; it makes me feel good that someone with no exposure to Sesame Street can learn so much about it here, mostly due to my efforts. I'm a good example of how being a WP editor can improve someone's life; out of the research, writing, and improving I've done with these articles, I've probably become one of the premiere experts on Sesame Street, other than those directly involved with The Show and The Workshop. It's very fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. And nice work! Often being a dummy-on-the-topic like me enables me to see issues that being an expert on the topic could make one miss. One areas that I'm really tough on is empathy for the reader. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of the best things about this project is the resource of both experts and non-experts. I appreciate the non-experts, since sometimes being too close to a topic limits one's perspective, especially about the prose. When you're immersed in a topic, you think that things that are obvious to you are obvious to everyone, and that's not often the case. That's why I like reviewing articles on things I know nothing about, like basketball and computer games. Well, sometimes anyway. ;)

The article said that letting song creators keep the rights "helped sustain public interest....." This seems like a bit of a leap / reach. The ref is offline, I couldn't check. Probably needs just a bit more explanation. Like "the helped attract big-name talent" or "this increased musical material by widely recognized artists". Or whatever the source said. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a phrase in the 1st sentence of the paragraph about it encouraging the composers to write more music, and put the public interest info in a quote and attributed it to Davis.

Good enough. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is just a suggestion, not a GA requirement, and no response is required. Suggest putting an image or info box in the beginning. Looks a bit austere/unusual without something there. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mother taught me manners, so of course I'll respond, although she might have thought my response was rude. ;) Personally, I hate infoboxes, so I avoid using 'em. Another issue with images for Sesame Street articles in general is that they're hard to come by. The Workshop is notoriously protective of their copyrighted images, and for good reason, so there simply aren't many free images available. How 'bout if I added quotebox, to give the eyes more variety? What do you think of the quote I added? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. BTW, when I made my original comment on this, I was thinking that even moving up an image that is already in this article would do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, given the (new) title, do you think that there should be a mention of the show itself as a funding/income source? (i.e. selling it to PBS)? North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this could be getting into a chicken-and-egg argument: using The Show to support itself. I finally added the Electric Co. mention. If this article still has one major glaring weakness, it's that it's not comprehensive enough. I've learned that researching and expanding one article leads you into working on others. For example, when I took on Sesame Street, I realized that I needed to research The Show's history, which led me to improving History of Sesame Street, my first SS-FA. Improving the main article led me to create about a dozen other articles. My point is that although the state of this article is fine for GA, I think to move it forward, it needs more research about the Workshop, which will lead me to improve Sesame Workshop. I can see the focus of this article eventually moving from mostly about Sesame Street to it focusing on the Workshop. That's what I love about this project: the input of others helping editors like me turn out quality work, and that we all work together. Stuff little kids learn about as they watch Sesame Street, too! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout just a sentence or two? When you look at the title literally, it would seem that the largest funding source for the Workshop has been left out? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put in one phrase that acknowledged it. If that looks OK, I think it could be enough. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. I think that given its title, it could still use a few more sentences on the main program as a funding sources, but I think that the implicit focuse of this article is on sources other than that.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has three images; the one non-free image has an article-specific use rationale. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This has passed as a Wikipedia good article. 2 suggestions remain open but they are just suggestions. Congratulations on such an informative article! North8000 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]