Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street research/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:40, 9 February 2013 [1].

Sesame Street research

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because its last FAC failed due to lack of support. I think it's close to FA; it just needs support, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Why is the lead so heavily sourced though? A lead should be a summary of the article, so any information in the lead should generally be sourced throughout the article. Is the lead made of of info not in the article itself?
Thanks. The lead was heavily sources (I removed the unnecessary sources just now) because I wrote it before I learned that leads don't require references if it's a summary of the article, which it is. Thanks for catching my oversight, as well as previous reviewers'.
There appears to be quite a lot of unnecessary use of parentheses.
To be honest, when I read this feedback, I went, "No way!" Then I looked, and went, "Ew, you're right!" ;) So I went through a did a copy-edit and removed most of them, keeping the ones I think are necessary. It's much improved now, thanks.
You also have "Educational Testing Service (ETS)" three times throughout the article, when it just needs to be done at the lead. Ωphois 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you about that, but here's my opinion about this: Of course, ETS should be spelled out and linked in the lead, since it's the first time it's introduced. I believe that it should be spelled out and linked the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article because it's not a summary, making it technically the first time it's mentioned, and in case the reader hasn't read the lead. The third mention is an exception to the policy about abbreviations and linking after the first mention because ETS is important in the section; it's almost like a new article. I'm not committed to this position, however, and if you tell me I need to change it, I will. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comments, but unfortunately I don't have enough time now to do a full review to offer support or opposition. Ωphois 01:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of 2001 there were over 1,000 research studies regarding the efficacy, impact, and effect of the children's television show Sesame Street on American culture." I don't see the over 1000 fact sourced later in the article. Seems odd to have the lead sentence mention the "efficacy" of Sesame Street when it has not yet been stated what the desired or intended result of the show is. Is it designed to be educational? If so, what is it supposed to be teaching? (I see this is covered later in the lead, but I think it should be mentioned sooner) Perhaps the lead sentence should be used to introduce the reader to the show? More background would be good to help put these numbers in context – when did the show premier/how many seasons has it been running?
  • "It marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show." To what does the "It" refer?
  • Who is Michael Davis, and is his opinion so important what he needs to be quoted in the 3rd sentence of the lead?
Made some changes to the lead; the above issues have now been resolved, I think. I removed the Davis quote because it's not mentioned in the body, anyway. Thanks, writing leads is one of my weakest points as an editor, so I appreciate the assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • please audit the article for the use of "which": which generally follows a comma; if not, "that" is often a better choice
The only two instances of this were in the lead; fixed.
  • "Changes based on their findings were made, and a body of objective data was compiled." I think this would sound better in the active voice
Done.
  • "demonstrated that viewing the program had positive effects" … "demonstrated the positive effects of the program" repetitious
Improved.
  • "As author Louise A. Gikow stated, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research." its use of research for what?
Clarified.
  • "Other children's television shows in existence were widely criticized …" that last bit sounds weaselly; can you confirm the sources will back up this strong wording?
I added "According to..." the guy who came up with it. Should I do more and directly quote him?
  • "Despite of her lack" fix
Oops, how did that get past me and everyone else?!
  • possibly useful links: curriculum, television producer, Muppet, literacy, experimental design, control group, social behavior, socioeconomic status
Done. Thanks for the input. Got any more for me? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making these changes. Next a bit of 1b and 1c: there's been some interesting recent research that hasn't been mentioned in this article. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that; on the one hand, I appreciate that the sources currently used are all good secondary sources (and thus preferable from a Wikipedia sourcing perspective). On the other hand, judicious use of primary sources can be ok in some instances, and I think the average reader would be interested in knowing about these studies. Hopefully some other reviewers will weigh in on this as well. So please have a look at these, and think about whether they might be integrated into the article somehow: PMID 23300386, PMID 23300385, PMID 16718304, PMID 15446663, and this. There's some more that can be found in a PubMed search, but these are the ones that stood out to me.
I've looked at the articles you list and since I have access to a university library (actually, two), I did some of my own research and found a few more. As I suspected, much of the more recent journal articles and studies about Sesame Street don't provide new information, and are reiterations of the older studies included in the sources used here, especially the G is for Growing book, which was published in 2001 by the Sesame Workshop and was a summary of the major studies done up to that point. (They really need to publish an update, perhaps for The Show's 45th or 50th anniversary.) I get your point, though; I've been thinking a lot lately about how in article creation and improvement, the concept of comprehensiveness sometimes trumps the policy of source reliability. Sometimes, in order to treat a subject comprehensively, you have to use not-so-reliable sources or even primary sources. I'm inclined, then, to summarize some of the primary sources so that the research about The Show is up-to-date. It's my intention to do just that. Please be patient with me as I do that, since I'm busy, so it may take a little while. If this article is failed again before I'm finished, I'd be disappointed but I'd understand. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been able to add some content from more recent research to this article. I think it add to the comprehensiveness you requested. As I state above, many of the sources I found in this most recent search didn't add new information, or didn't really have any applications to the use of Sesame Street in research. Please let me know what you think about what I've added. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new additions are appropriate in length and weight, but some tweaks are needed:
  • "In 2010, researchers at the University of Michigan studied the effect of combining video clips of Sesame Street and related print materials, online activities, and teacher training and mentoring." The effect ... on what?
  • What are the "post-implementation tests"? (I suppose this may become evident when the previous sentence is fixed)
  • "studied children's and adults' brain responses" think the position of the possessive apostrophe needs to be adjusted in one of these
  • is there a useful link for verbal IQ? (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale?)
  • "... responses to real-life stimuli by using Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test the brain's response to real-world stimuli." can this be tweaked to avoid the repetition of "real-world stimuli"?
  • just noticed that the "et al."s are inconsistently italicized. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the above has been addressed. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame that there isn't freely-licensed pic that could be used to help illustrate the show or its characters. Have you considered writing to Sesame Workshop and explaining what you're doing here on Wikipedia? It seems to me that they might be amenable to releasing a couple of low-resolution images for our use, especially considering the positive exposure they'd get if/when this hits the front page, the complimentary nature of this article, and the generally compatible missions of Wikipedia (free info for all) and their organization (using the educational power of media to help teach children). The worst that happens is that they say no, right?
Believe me, after years of working on these articles, I feel your pain. I have emailed the Workshop in the past, but got no answer. I think that it is about time that I write them. I would really like the main article to be on the main page by The Show's 45th anniversary, and having free images would help. The interesting thing is that in the Gikow book, they include a quote by Jimbo Wales about this very thing--about how compatible WP and the Workshop's missions are. I've even put the quote on my own userpage here [2] I will use that when I write them in the next week or so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied with the changes and new additions you've made, and am leaning support, but would like to hear what other reviewers have to say before I commit (I don't usually review this type of article). Hope some others will drop by ... Sasata (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the majority of children's programming - would "Unlike most children's programming..." (shorter) lose any meaning? trying to make writing more succinct.....
No problem, fixed.
CTW's researchers were strongly influenced by behaviorism, a popular movement in psychology during the late 1960s; therefore, many methods and tools used were primarily behavioral - a tricky sentence...I am wondering if we can use some other word than "behavioral" here which makes me think this sentence is somewhat circular...I can't think of an alternative. I guess my concern is the word "behavioral" gets bandied about alot by folks with a somewhat plastic meaning, so am thinking some more precise or explanatory word or words would be better....
I agree that the term "behavioral" and even "behaviorism" has lost its meaning. Let me rework that a bit. Hmm, is this better: "Most of the methods and tools CTW's researchers used were influenced by behaviorism, a popular movement in psychology during the late 1960s which they embraced"?
Yeah, I like that better..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link efficacy somewhere.
Done, to the article.

Overall looking more polished than last time - it can be a little heavy going to read but I think that is due to the scope of the article and technical nature of the subject matter. As I am not sure how the prose could be made more engaging I think I can 'cautiously support this as FA on prose and (it appears) comprehensiveness grounds. The above quibbles are not deal-breakers for mine. Like Sasata I'd be interested to hear other input/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas. One of the best things about the FAC process is that it usually results in substantial improvements to articles, if the main editor is open to reviewers' suggestions. There are few places in this project, and in life for that matter, that offers this kind of thing. I think this FAC has certainly helped improve this article. I wasn't sure what to think about your comments; I mean, to me, this is an immensely interesting article, perhaps because I'm so close to it. After thinking about it today, I love it. I love it that an article about Sesame Street has been called "technical", as if its complexity makes it inaccessible. It's a huge compliment, to me personally, as an editor and writer, and to the topic. So thanks! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've read to the end of the background section. No huge problems, but a few niggly prose issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unlike the majority of children's programming, it used research to both create the show and test its impact on its young viewers and marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show.": Long sentence, and two "its" and an "it" make it a little repetitive.
This sentence has been reworked so many times! Is this better: "Unlike most children's programming and for the first time, the show used research to both create the show and test its impact on its young viewers"?
  • "As author Louise A. Gikow stated…": Suggests editorial agreement, which we should avoid.
Changed to: "According to author Louise A. Gikow..."
  • "When Sesame Street was created during the late 1960s, children's programming was, as Cooney later called it, a "wasteland"." And again.
Ok, I regulated Cooney's comments to the following note, and connected it more strongly to Minow's speech about TV.
  • "According to writer David Borgenicht, other children's television shows in existence were widely criticized for being little more than cartoons depicting violence and reflecting commercial values": Some redundancy.
  • "The Carnegie Corporation, which was one of Sesame Street's first financial backers, hired Cooney during the summer of 1967 to visit experts in childhood development, education, and media across the US and Canada.": More of the same
  • "Despite her lack of experience in education,[10] her study (which spelled out how television could be used as an aid in the education of preschool children, especially those living in inner cities) was well received.": The section in parentheses looks like it should belong in the previous sentences.
Fixed above.
  • "Throughout the history of Sesame Street…": While I know what this means, I'm not sure about the use of "history" like this.
Ok, changed to: "The show's research staff and producers conducted regularly-scheduled internal reviews and seminars..."
  • Last two sentences of "Background" section begin "As of 2001…"
Actually, these instances were separated by another sentence, but I changed the second instance of "as of 2001" to the middle of the sentence. If you think it's best, I could remove it all together.

I'm hoping to read the rest soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually say at this point, "Take your time," but I won't because this FAC has been here for a while and I'm afraid it's gonna get failed again. ;) Thanks, some great feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Evanh2008: In the lead, the sentence beginning "As of 2001" should read, "As of 2001, there had been over 1,000 research studies examining the show's impact on children's learning and attention." That corrects the tense to past perfect as opposed to an ambiguous form of the simple past which could imply that all those studies were ongoing in 2001. A comma is also inserted after "2001", in keeping with standard punctuation usage (some say it's not necessary, but I differ). As a whole, this article looks pretty good. I'll see if I can't give it a thorough look in the next few days. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. I'd appreciate your review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've read the rest of the article now. I think it reads pretty well and is not too dry or technical apart from the last couple of paragraphs. Otherwise, I think the prose could stand some tightening in places, but nothing major. Although I'm not an expert on Sesame Street, I've a bit of an educational background, and everything seems to be on the button from an that viewpoint. I will be happy to support once my nit-picks are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarastrol, for the review and for these kind words.
  • "a system of planning, production, and evaluation which did not fully emerge until the end of the show's first season": What about "a system of planning, production, and evaluation which only emerged after the show's first season"? Tighter, but may lose some meaning?
I'm fine with it; it doesn't lose that much meaning. Changed.
  • "The CTW model consisted of four parts…": Perhaps let the reader count: "The CTW model involved…"?
Fine, I'm good with assuming the reader has intelligence. ;)
  • "and independent summative research into what its viewers learned"
  • "whom CTW hired to design the program's educational objectives": Are objectives "designed", or just written?
Above two fixed. I'll bow to you as an education expert regarding the better use of the term.
  • "for bridging the gap between the show's producers and researchers."
  • "each side contributed "its own unique perspective and expertise"": In-text attribution (while not demanded by the MoS in these instances) is always helpful for the reader.
Um, that's ref 25, right?
  • "The production staff recognized early in Sesame Street's history that access to researchers gathering children's reactions and guiding production was a valuable resource.": I think this sentence is a bit laboured. "History" is being used again, too. What about something like "Early in the [planning?] process, production staff recognized that it was necessary [or valuable, or vital, or helpful. Something like that.] to have access to researchers who could gather [or record, or register, or similar. Not sure that gather works.] children's reactions and guide the production."
How about: "Early in the planning process, production staff recognized that it was valuable to have access to researchers who could analyze children's reactions and help them improve production."
  • "Researchers, acting as experts, advocated for children, while the show's writers and producers brought their instincts for and their past successes with entertaining children through television.": I'm afraid I lose the meaning of this sentence, even after re-reading a few times.
I hear you. Looking at it again, it occurs to me that the phrase regarding the writers is redundant, so I removed it and then tightened up and added the second phrase to the previous sentence. It now reads: "Early in the planning process, production staff recognized that it was valuable to have access to researchers who could analyze children's reactions and help them improve production, and the show's writers and producers brought their instincts for and experience in children's television."
  • "The writers were initially skeptical about their collaboration with researchers and about the curriculum…": Do we need to have the curriculum, or could we cut from after "researchers"?
Sure, no prob. Tightened up the sentence some more.
  • "but, as Stone reported, eventually came to see it as "a backbone" of the creative process." And perhaps we could lose the quotation marks.
  • "The need for preschool education in each country was accessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts, similar to what had been done in the US.": As written, this suggests that they were looking at how necessary pre-school education was in each country. And "similar to what had been done" is inelegant. What about "similar to the process followed"?
  • "They were able to record almost every second of Sesame Street this way": Is "record" the right word, or would "assess" or "test" work better?
Above suggestions followed. At first, I thought that "record" was the best choice, but I looked again and saw that it was redundant. "Assess" works better, I think, so that's what I put in.
  • "and became an irreplaceable part of CTW's research on its programs' effectiveness for decades": Irreplaceable suggests editorial judgement.
If you say so. ;) Removed the offensive word and tightened up the sentence.
  • "found that the program resulted in more learning when children watched carefully": Perhaps "found that children learned more when they watched the program carefully". Or perhaps something else is intended here. If so, it is unclear.
  • "it found that children had retained most of what they had previously learned": And presumably what they had learned from the specific show?
  • "were comparisons between children who watched it regularly and those who did not"
  • "Instead of using groups of viewers and non-viewers, later large-scale studies used statistical designs and methods for estimating cause-effect relationships.": This one loses me a little.
Previous comments addressed. This is research-speak, but I changed it and deleted some dross to make it clearer. How about: "Instead of using groups of viewers and non-viewers, studies conducted by the ETS after the second season used statistical designs and methods."
  • "ETS, whose prestige enhanced the credibility of its findings,[50] conducted two landmark summative evaluations in 1970 and 1971, demonstrating that Sesame Street had a significant educational impact on its viewers.": A little too much going on here. Perhaps a split is needed. Also, perhaps "the prestige of which" would be more accurate than "whose".
Done; changed to: "ETS, the prestige of which enhanced the credibility of its findings, conducted two landmark summative evaluations in 1970 and 1971. These studies demonstrated that..."
  • "ETS reported that the children who watched the show most learned the most": And should it be "learned more"? (There can only be two groups)
  • "an informal home setting": A what?
Next two done. I was going for the home, as opposed to at school, which tends to be a more formal setting. But I can see how it can be confusing, so I changed the phrase to "at home". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regular viewers scored higher in school adjustment, had a more positive attitude toward school and better peer relations.": What is school adjustment? And we are comparing something ("more") but do not specify what.
Fixed by adding "non-viewers" to both groups being compared. Then I separated it into two sentences because it felt a little clunky to me. "School adjustment" is a psychological/educational term, but since you needed clarification, I re-worded it and defined it.
  • "The show's positive general effects, as cited by ETS)": Missing parenthesis somewhere.
No, extra one; removed it.
  • "Palmer found that Jamaican children's interest dropped during segments with the Muppets, possibly due to language differences": Something a bit off here; language is the wrong expression as Jamaicans speak English.
Actually, English is the official language in Jamaica; they also speak Patwah, a creole. Gikow states that the reason the Muppet segments didn't work with Jamaican kids "due to difficulties in translation". I took that to mean that it didn't translate well from the Jamaican language to English, but it could mean that it was due to cultural differences. I'll just quote her directly to clear up any confusion.
  • "watching Sesame Street daily did not increase children's viewing of other categories of television, or made them less likely to participate in other educational activities.": Should be "nor" rather than "or".
  • "In 1994, research was conducted for a study entitled "The Recontact Study", funded by the Markle Foundation, that examined ": I'm pretty sure it should be "which examined".
  • "When the study's research subjects were statistically equated for parents' level of education, birth order, residence and gender": Equated for?
Next few comments addressed. I wikilinked "statistically equated".
  • "but only for theSesame Street material": Missing space.
  • "While the time they looked at stimulus decreased for all types of stimulus from fourteen to twenty-six weeks, the length increased depending on the stimulus": This just about makes sense, but the contrast between increasing and decreasing means that it needs reading twice. Maybe re-word a little?
Next two. Re-worded as you direct: "The time they looked at stimulus decreased for all types of stimulus from fourteen to twenty-six weeks, but the time they looked at it increased depending on the stimulus."
  • I'm struggling to get the point of the very last paragraph.
I'm not sure I understand what's unclear. The final two studies discussed are studies done later, in more recent years.
  • A few too many "founds" in the summative section.
Now there are 5, down from a whopping 15.
Not now. ;) Thanks for the feedback. I believe that I addressed all the above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Evanh2008:

  • I wonder if there isn't a public domain or CC-licensed image we could add to this article. Perhaps you've already looked into it?

Lead section

  • "Unlike most children's programming and for the first time" is awkward and unwieldy. I suggest changing it to "Unlike earlier children's programming," or something similar. This improves reading flow and eliminates redundancy with the last sentence of the second paragraph.
  • Similarly, I recommend trimming "The producers changed the show based on their findings, and they were able to compile a body of objective data." to something like "The producers changed the show and compiled a body of objective data based on their findings."

Background and development

  • "According to author Louise A. Gikow, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research to both create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers." ---> "According to author Louise A Gikow, Sesame Street's use of research both to create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers set it apart from other children's programming."
  • "child-development" doesn't need to be hyphenated.
  • Who is Palmer? That's a rhetorical question; I know it is referring to Ed Palmer, but his full name needs to be used on the first mention. After that, all references to him should use only the surname, except within quotations. On the first mention you should also introduce him, as is now done in the first paragraph of the following section. A simple copy and paste from that section to this one should be sufficient here.
  • "preschool children" ---> "preschoolers". This one isn't a big deal, but I feel like "children" is being used quite a bit here. This is unavoidable to some degree, but where we can shake up the terminology, we should.

The "CTW model"

  • "interaction of television producers and educators" ---> "interaction between television producers and educators", for clarity.
  • Place a comma immediately after "to shape the program". You used the serial comma in the previous section, and you'll want to keep this consistent.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE, "its own unique perspective and expertise" needs to be attributed to the person who originally said it.
  • "gathering children's reactions and guiding production" is redundant here. The sentence works just fine without it.
  • Change "ensure" to "create". Strictly speaking, one "ensures" a verbal construct, as in "ensur[ing] the creation of the best possible product". For brevity, though, we should simply change it to "create".
  • CTW sounds like an acronym. What does it stand for, if anything?
  • The "acting as experts" clause is unnecessary. Researchers very rarely act in any other capacity.
  • "The writers were initially skeptical about their collaboration with researchers and about the curriculum but, as Stone reported, eventually came to see it as "a backbone" of the creative process." ---> "Though initially skeptical about both the collaboration and the curriculum, the writers eventually came to see both as integral parts of the creative process." Excising the quote allows for better prose in this case.
  • Similar to the Palmer bit above, who is Stone?
  • "accessed" -- I am certain you mean "assessed".
  • "Then they convened the experts in a series of meetings," ---> "They then convened the experts in a series of meetings,"
  • "its set and characters" ---> "its set, and its characters" (That serial comma again, as well as parallel structure.)

Formative research

  • "to see if the show held children's attention" ---> "to determine whether the show held children's attention"
  • "academicians" ---> "academics"
  • "writer Malcolm Gladwell" ---> "author Malcolm Gladwell", so no one confuses him with a writer for the show.
  • "formative research and working" ---> "formative research, and for working". Parallel structure.
  • "These reinforced their results" ---> "These reinforced earlier results"
  • "reactions and responses" ---> "reactions, and responses". Serial comma.
  • "described by Sesame Street researcher Shalom M. Fisch" ---> "described by Fisch"
  • Either put "distractor" in quotation marks in every instance or only in the first.

Summative research

  • Remove "Educational Testing Service", leaving only the acronym. It has been named and wikilinked in the section above. See WP:OVERLINK.
  • "testers and observers" ---> "testers, and observers". Serial comma.
  • "Although adult supervision was not required for children to learn the material being presented" ---> "Although adult supervision was not required for children to learn using the material presented". Minor tense adjustment, clarification that, presumably, children were learning using the material, and not learning the material itself.
  • "toward school and better peer relations" ---> "toward school, and better peer relations". Serial comma.
  • "well-to-do and poorer children" ---> "well-to-do children and their less wealthy peers".
  • There is a stray right parenthesis at "as cited by ETS)".
  • "in Jamaica of the effects" ---> "in Jamaica regarding the effects"
  • "or made them less likely to participate in other educational activities". I assume you meant "or make them less likely to participate in other educational activities", but this sentence means the perfect opposite of that, in a grammatically confused way.
  • What is the difference between "word" and "printed-word" in "letter and word recognition and printed-word identification"? Also, spot the missing serial comma.
  • "research was conducted for a study entitled 'The Recontact Study'" ---> "research was conducted for 'The Recontact Study'". Brevity and redundancy.
  • "The effects were stronger in adolescent boys than adolescent girls" ---> "The effects were stronger in adolescent boys than in adolescent girls". Parallel structure.
  • I am unsure that the clause, "and there was no evidence that the show had a negative effect on creativity", is necessary, as there is nothing in the surrounding text that would lead one to expect any such negative effect on creativity. If the study makes this observation in contrast with other programs, proper context should be added. If not, this clause should be removed.
  • "In the spring of 2001" ---> "In spring 2001"
  • "supporting the evidence that movement" ---> "supporting the idea that movement"
  • "both on age and the type of" ---> "both on age and on the type of". Parallel structure.
  • "the length increased" ---> "the duration increased". "Duration" is more specifically a measurement of time elapsed, while "length" is ambiguous.

A lot of prose issues here, but I'm confident they can be overcome. The content and overall structure is good, and I look forward to supporting shortly. Good luck! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sesame_Street_research/archive2&oldid=538086042"