Wikipedia:Peer review/Blue's Clues/archive1

Blue's Clues

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some additional feedback before I submit it to FAC. It's a GA and has been copyedited. I appreciate your assistance.

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments

Just a quick look through, as I haven't got a lot of time, so ignore anything that comes across as curt (and try to read round any typos)

No problem. Sorry it took me so long to get to this; I've also been busy.

"Research was used as feedback during the creative process" - this doesn't make sense

Clarified.

You might add a few "in the US" to the lead and the history section and link US specific terms like US Congress.

Done, hopefully I've done it enough.

"...and mandated no accountability" - really? They specified that there should be no accountability?

Also clarified, to "had no provisions for enforcement".

"...children's programming on TV, but most of them..." - shifts from singular to plural

Fixed with above corrections.

Decide whether to us "U.S." or "US"

Fixed, interestingly enough, only in the history section.

'These producers, who consisted of the "green creative team"' - the team consisted of the producers not the other way round

Ok, changed to "were made up of".

'and it became "crucial"[13] to Nickelodeon's growth.' - became crucial in 2002 or "had become"?

Ah, I see your point. Clarified by moving the phrase up further in the paragraph.

I'm not sure the details of the stage show and its reception belong just after the details of the launch of the TV show. It would feel more natural to discuss this at some point after the main sections on the TV show.

I put it there because chronologically, it was the next information available. Do you think that it fits better in the "Reception" section?

Yes, either there or in a section or sub-section of its own. Yomangani ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

" As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances" - is there no more up-to-date information, or did the live show stop in 2002?

I included the information available. I don't know when the live show ended.

"as he was played by Tom Mizer, a different actor than the host of the TV show" - was Tom Mizer the host or was he playing a character?

Yes and yes. The information available never states the name of his character, who like Steve and Joe of the series, played the show's host. It's very clear, though, that he wasn't playing either Steve or Joe. I reworded it, so perhaps it's more clear now. Please look and see if that's the case, and if not, what suggestions do you have to improve it further?

"Blue's Clues was spun-off in January 2006 as Blue's Room" - this sounds odd. The spin-off is the thing that is spun off not the original programme.

Really? I've always understood that this is correct, as in, quoting directly from the article in question: "[Laverne and Shirley] was a spin-off from Happy Days..."

Yes, in that case Laverne and Shirley was spun off. It sounds awkward used as a verb anyway; I've rephrased it but I'm not really happy with that either. Also the sentence which starts "The show celebrated its 10-year anniversary" isn't clear as to whether it was "Blue's Clues" or "Blue's Room" - you can work it out quite easily if you can remember more than one sentence but rephrasing wouldn't hurt. Yomangani ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'm not sure it can be improved, but we'll wait for the FAC reviewers to chime in with a better idea.

"Casting was another key to the success of Blue's Clues." - what are the keys listed already? Presumably the "intensive and extensive research" mentioned several paragraphs ago. If the details of the live show were moved this probably would not appear so disjointed, but rephrasing it won't hurt.

Fair enough. Changed to "an important part of..."

"Mr. Salt was not originally French, but spoke with a Brooklyn accent" - assumes knowledge of the character. I suppose we will later discover that he is French.

Um, not sure what you mean. Mr. Salt spoke with a French accent, but was at first envisioned with a Brooklyn one. Perhaps this works better: "Balaban initially used a Brooklyn accent for Mr. Salt before settling upon a French accent". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"caused a resurface of the rumors" - ugly phrasing

Changed it to "renewed the rumors". Prettier now? ;)

"... and was replaced, like Paul McCartney of The Beatles, by a look-alike..." - Paul McCartney wasn't replaced. This needs rephrasing to make it clear that there was a similar rumour about Paul McCartney (or you could just drop it).

Oh, I don't want to drop it! ;) How's this: "...and like the rumors surrounding Paul McCartney of The Beatles, was replaced by a look-alike". BTW, I notice that you're using British spellings with this review; BC is an American show, so I need to use US spellings.

Hopefully I should only use British spelling here and get in line in the article (though I can't promise to be 100% accurate in my translationization). I rephrased that so the replacement refers to McCartney and not the rumours. Yomangani ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He he. No problem; just wanted to be clear. I have the same issues--using U.S. spelling in the talk pages and Aussie in the articles--when I edit articles about The Wiggles. I miss stuff all the time, and it takes sharp fellow editors to catch it.

"Burns made an appearance on The Rosie O'Donnell Show to dispute these rumors" - he'd only be disputing them if he was a lookalike, otherwise "refute" or "disprove" is fine.

Ok, got it.

"The show's producers took the rumors as an indication of their success" - they already knew it was a success; they took the rumours as a indication of its cultural impact

Ok, got that too.

"that included articles in Nickelodeon's magazine and on their webpage" - Nickelodeon is a company so "its webpage" would be better

Yup.

"Viewers had to pay attention in order to succeed, which the producers wanted to capitalize on..." - ugly phrasing

How about: "The show's producers believed that comprehension and attention were strongly connected, so they wrote the episodes to encourage and increase their viewer's attention."

"prosocial" - if you must use it, link it.

Done.

It's quite wordy. There are many places were five words are used when one would do.

I assume that you're talking about the "Educational goals" section. I copyedited it; let me know if you wanted me to look at other sections again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"by placing problem-solving tasks in the context of storytelling techniques" - "by placing problem-solving tasks in stories"? They aren't placing them in techniques, they are using techniques to deliver them.

Clarified to: "by placing problem-solving tasks within the stories they told"

"and inviting direct involvement" - "and inviting involvement"? What does the "direct" add?

Replaced "direct" with "their".

There are lots of "upons". A simple "on" will do most of the time.

Actually there were nine. ;) Now there are none.

I call it "lots" if it is more than I can count on my fingers. Wait...what?! I'm sure I had more fingers when I started counting this collection of razor blades, chainsaws and meat-slicers. Yomangani ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He he again; love the British humor. "What are you ginna do, bleed on me?" Thanks again, and for the copyedit. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a one-way conversation" - a conversation is an exchange, it is impossible for it to be one-way

There is such a phrase, but after looking it up [1], I've decided that it's too informal. So I changed it to: "with little input from their viewers".

Yes, urban dictionary is a bit too urban for WP. Yomangani ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"dropped the traditional magazine format for a narrative format" - from this section it appears that this tradition is the tradition of Sesame Street - what other shows used this format? (The implication is that Mr Roger's Neighborhood had already used this narrative format)

Good point. Changed to: "They also dropped the magazine format for a more traditional narrative format".

"and was concrete, explicit, and literal" - what?

Taken from Tracy, who also doesn't explain it, so I just cut the phrase.

"The collected data was brought back to the writers and creators, who used it as feedback and revised the script." - wordy. "The writers revised the scripts based on this feedback" (you can add "and creators" in there if they are different people).

Such good feedback! ;) Done.

I'll try to add some comments on the second half later if you find these useful. Yomangani ^talk 00:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're very helpful! Thanks. To be honest, I haven't found PRs all that helpful in the past, so thanks for breaking the stereotype. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television could be a "powerful educational agent" because it was accessible and a "powerful cultural artifact" for most American children" - although they are quotes the repetition of "powerful" is a little awkward.

You're right, it is. Changed to: "The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television, a "cultural artifact" and accessible for most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent"."

"Television programs had tended to tell stories through pictures, so the potential for episodic learning was high." This sounds like a quote. If it isn't then it looks like a personal judgement.

Tracy doesn't explain what "episodic learning" meant, so removed the offensive phrase. I also think it was a little repetitive, so I combined what was left with the following sentence. Perhaps it clearer now.

"The producers wanted to foster their audience's sense of empowerment, by eliciting their assistance for the show's host, and their identification with the character Blue, who served as a stand-in for the typical preschooler" - it isn't clear what they wanted to do here. Did they want to foster the audience's sense of empowerment by getting them to assist the host and identify with Blue or did they want to foster their sense of empowerment and also foster their identification with Blue?

The former. Here's how I clarified it: "The producers wanted to foster their audience's sense of empowerment by eliciting their assistance for the show's host and by encouraging their identification with the character Blue, who served as a stand-in for the typical preschooler."

"Inspired by Mr. Roger's Neighborhood,..." - it's not clear what was inspired.

Ugh. Here's how I changed it: "Like what had already been done in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers..."

"The success of Blue's Clues caused Sesame Street to change its format in 2002, and to add more interactive segments" - did it change its format AND add interactive segments or change its format TO add interactive segments? Yomangani ^talk 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They did both. Clarified by putting the timeframe at the end of the sentence.

Again, thanks. Going forward? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and looked like no other children's television show" - probably close to a source, but it sounds like hyperbole.
"who would narrate the story in the form of a storybook" - this is unclear. Were they narrating it as if they were reading it from a book?
"that resembled a storybook" - unclear again and I don't think you need it as you have "similar to picture book illustrations" quite quickly afterwards
"This made the objects look more real" - more real than what?
"and in school preparation" - not really sure what this is.
daycare centers, preschools, and Headstart programs get mentioned three times in the production and research sections. If you can find an alternative phrase that covers these it would help break it up a little. Yomangani ^talk 13:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a point. Presumably Sesame Street isn't/wasn't profitable, but some context for the statement would be helpful.
"started the trend of targeting preschool programs and merchandise to younger viewers" - we have heard very little about merchandise up to this point which makes the introduction and explanation in the "Reception" section a bit odd. Most of this section is not about the reception of the show except in terms of sales of related products. I think it would be better separate this into a sub-section on merchandising.
"the businesses that created products for the show" - this is vague.
"More than ten million Blue's Clues books were in print by 2001, and over three million copies of six CD-ROM titles based on the show had been sold. Seven Blue's Clues titles sold at least 1 million copies each." What are "titles" in the second sentence? The information doesn't seem to tie in to the preceding sentence.
"and has sold over 3 million copies since 2006" - I imagine that is a direct reference from Skein, but it seems an odd figure to give for a product launched in 2000.
"Other countries have produced regional versions of the show that feature native hosts. It has been successful in the UK..." - the original or a regional version? If it is the original you could overcome any confusion by repositioning the leading sentence after anything that refers to the original version. Also the second sentence gives a slight implication that it has not been successful anywhere apart form the UK.
" with five-to-ten signs used consistently in each episode" - presumably should be "between five and ten" rather than the sign for five minutes to ten o'clock being used in every episode? You never know with these kids programs though.
This section ("Reception") could be beefed up with a bit of the reception information info from "History" but you'll need to be careful not to hack a hole in the history section. Yomangani ^talk 14:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"that provided evidence for its efficacy as a learning tool" - the pronoun is lost here: does it refer to research or to Blue's Clues?
"which they called "an inexpensive tool to maximize comprehension", improved comprehension...." - clunky. Perhaps lose the quote?
"Another team of researchers, which also included Anderson and his Nickelodeon colleagues, studied in 2000 whether experienced Blue's Clues viewers interacted more with the show than less-frequent viewers, and whether regular viewers of the show interacted more with other shows than did children who were not" - this is a bit tortuous. I think you can drop most of this detail without any loss to the text: "Another study in 2000 found..."
"Erin Ryan and her colleagues" - who is she (maybe I've just forgot if she was introduced earlier)
'He developed a "successful"' - strange word to quote: it doesn't tell us much and isn't a word that is out of place in this context.
The paragraphing in the "Influence" section seems rather random. The last paragraph in particular seems to lack context - either it harks back to an earlier study or lacks information on when the research was carried out.
The "Influence" section is more analysis than influence - how did the findings from these studies influence children's TV or the development of Blue's Clues for example?

That's it. Sorry, it took so long. Yomangani ^talk 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]