Talk:History of Sesame Street/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhfortier (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Having participated in one of two recent peer reviews, and having made no significant contributions to the article, I will evalutate History of Sesame Street using GA criteria.

Notes: The previous GA review (September 4, 2009) had two 'fails': one for 2C (Original research) and one for 3A (major aspects in broad coverage). The article has been greatly improved since the previous GA review (having undergone 2 peer reviews and >250 edits), with a number of dedicated editors contributing a lot of new material and also many improving edits. I will thoroughly use the previous GA evaluations, but I believe most of the points of contention in those reviews have been addressed.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Passed on previous GA eval., and improved even more now with good copyediting and some ferocious sentence-slimming work. Well done! b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): checked a number of available online citations, all seem in order. Must WP:AGF for offline references as am not able to access them currently, but have no doubt that they're as carefully sourced and cited as everything else.b (citations to reliable sources): Main contributing editors have done a fantastic job citing many reliable, well-known offline resources. Citations are matched to pages in print references, for easy fact verification. c (OR): Many direct quotations from sources, but no original synthesis is obviously present.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): In the previous GA review, concerns were raised over the focus of this article on the American version of Sesame Street. Given the extensive coverage at International co-productions of Sesame Street, and the fact that this article is clearly aimed at the American version of Sesame Street, instead of Sesame Park, Galli Galli Sim Sim, Jalan Sesama, Sesamstraat, etc etc, I don't share the previous reviewer's concerns. Additionally, there is a banner right at the top of the article that informs the reader that this is the American version's history. b (focused): Well-thought-out section headings, information well organized, and on-topic throughout. Great coverage of a vast amount of information.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: The extensive praise that the show has received is well balanced with the early critiques (insufficient representation of women and certain minorities; concerns about the fast pace of the show etc.) and recent challenges.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: Stable article

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): all images have fair-use rationales, are of low resolution when not free etc. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Great work

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Well done! A great deal of hard work went into improving this article! While it's not perfect yet (I've got a small list of edits I'm going to be making over the next few days), it meets or exceeds many of the other GAs I've read in terms of quality and research.