Talk:Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 2, 2007.

Contents

[edit] GA discussion

My main concern with this article continues to be the main concern I raised at the FAC - this doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It tells an interesting story about an encyclopedic topic, but too much of the article reads like a story, and that's problematic.

Besides that, a quick copyedit would be helpful and I'd do a little more citing, as a lot of people would consider this article undercited at the moment. They're fixable issues, but they're still issues.

Good luck. --13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)

I've failed this for GA, as there has been no response to the questions raised for over seven days. Please feel free to resubmit the article for GA if/when the issues have been addressed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have since asked Badlydrawnjeff for clarification on his earlier comments, in particular, citation. -- Zanimum 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not at the present time. Article is formatted almost exactly like Muppet Wikia, which reads more like a fan Website description with some sources, and not an encyclopedic article. Way too much usage of {{cquote}}, cut this down to simply regular quotes "" - and maybe retain one usage of {{cquote}}, if you really feel you wish to highlight something.
2. Factually accurate?: Seems to be pretty good, but please go back and reformat the rest of the cites with WP:CIT. It's not required, but since you already used it for some of them, just keep citing uniformity in the rest of the article.
3. Broad in coverage?: Test results moves right into "The final episode addressed the advisors' concerns via a conversation in which..." - but what about the main plot of the episode itself? If this was not developed fully, please explain and source that in the article.
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written with a neutral point of view.
5. Article stability? Article appears to be stable, no edit wars in the edit history or incivility on the talk page.
6. Images?: Lacking images. A previous reviewer also asked - but couldn't you use some screenshots? If there are no relevant free-use screenshots of Snuffy or some other related image, try to make a detailed fair use rationale case for a fair use screenshot.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Please message my talk page after the above has been addressed, and I will reevaluate. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: picture for the article

Reply in progress:

6. I thought we were to avoid using fair use images at all costs, only if they were necessary to understand the concepts relayed in the article. It's not necessary to know what a Snuffleupagus looks like, to understand that they're getting divorced, is it? The only free images of Sesame Street that exist are of Bob McGrath, who indeed does comment in the article (that comment could have been from anyone so a picture would be decorative at most), of the Oscar the Grouch puppet at the Smithsonian (the character is mentioned as being star of the replacement episode, but again, an image would be mostly decorative), and of a new character, introduced season 36 (2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the particular reviewer of this article, but one (and only one) free use image of this article would be acceptable to use in the infobox. Preferably, it should be something that very clearly elucidates an important part of this episode (a screen shot of a crucial plot point for example). Cheers, CP 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that the episode never aired and has never been released, either in whole, as a leaked bootleg, in the Museum of Television and Radio or even as clips in one of the 5 or more documentaries on Sesame Street. It does not exist anywhere, except for the private collection of Sesame Workshop. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GAC

I'm sorry, but it has been well over seven days and my above points were not really addressed, and no one messaged my talk page. Feel free to take my above suggestions into account, and continue to improve the state of this article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Confused about the planned airdate

I'm confused by the assertion that this episode, originally slated to be #2895, was to air on April 10, 1992. That doesn't seem to match with Sesame Street's old production and airing schedule. I happen to have the episode that ended up being #2985 instead (the Oscar the Grouch story mentioned in the article). Based on the airing schedule Sesame Street used to have, it would have aired no later than January 1992, but more likely late December 1991.

Seasons 1-29 had 130 hours each. (Except the second season, which for some reason had 145.) Knowing that the premiere aired on Monday, November 10, 1969, and that every season lasted 26 weeks, was repeated once, then was replaced by another six-month season, it's easy to estimate within a fairly small margin of error when the airdate for any random show would have been (up until #3786, when the production and airing schedule was changed).

Therefore, I'm confused how #2895 could have originally been slated to air as late as April 1992, since by the beginning of that month, the numbers would have been in the 2970's.

I've just talked to a writer on Muppet Wiki, and he's provided me with the references for both the airdate and episode number. The number is in an educational study by a current Sesame Workshop exec, and the airdate is in both U.S. News & World Report and the Herald Sun. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] airdate

User:Newbie27 is adding this link as a source that this episode aired on KQED. I'm not seeing anything that supports this claim on that site. Her/His note says to see the April 1992 listing, but that archive only goes back to Jan 31, 2000. Am I missing something? —scarecroe (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, as far as I can tell. Seeing that this isn't their only series of disruptive edits, I've warned this user on their talk page that they may be banned for two weeks if they continue. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See [1] for information. Newbie27 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Some random fan having a memory about what s/he may or may not have dreamed/seen on TV does not constitute as a verifiable source. —scarecroe (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See also the KQED San Francisco website's episode archives for more information. Newbie27 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to. Can you provide a link please? —scarecroe (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So, back to my original point, that link has nothing to do with proving that this episode aired. —scarecroe (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Look in broadcast archives for April 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 March 2008
Please read the first post in this thread. —scarecroe (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
KQED Public Television keeps an archives of all their programs, going all the way back to the station debut in 1954. An online version of the station's extensive program schedules is accessible through the KQED website. View the April 10, 1992 station listing for more information on this episode. If you are having problems locating or accessing information within the archives, you may consult the station's viewer services at (415) 553-2135 for live assistance available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm or via email at tv@kqed.org. The station can provide you with any information of their past programs, children's programming efforts and broadcast history upon request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie27 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I am quick failing the article per the Quick fail criteria, the article has too many {{fact}} tags which means there's too much original research. I also see some style problems, like years and common words (death, birth) wikilinked, so I think it's better if you take a closer look to What is a Good Article? before renominating. When it comes to the picture problem, why not just add some random sesame street pictures with a fair use rationale? Happy editing! --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)