Talk:The Debate (The West Wing)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: The West Wing Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the West Wing task force (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from The Debate (The West Wing) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 January 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after The West Wing's live, open presidential debate episode, MSNBC polled viewers on whom they thought won?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Debate.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that The West Wing's presidential debate episode was shot live and partially improvised? Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/live-debate-on-the-west-wing-may-shame-the-real-thing/
- ALT1: ... that after The West Wing's live, open presidential debate episode, MSNBC polled viewers on who they thought won? Source: https://www.today.com/popculture/viewers-give-santos-victory-debate-barely-wbna9957958
- ALT1a: ... that after The West Wing's live, open presidential debate episode, viewers polled by MSNBC thought that Democratic candidate Matt Santos had won the debate?
- ALT2: ... that The West Wing's live, open presidential debate episode inspired an open debate in a real-life state legislature race sixteen years later? Source: https://newjerseyglobe.com/legislature/new-jersey-globe-announces-state-senate-debate-schedule/
- ALT3: ... that The West Wing's live, open presidential debate episode was said to be both "startlingly realistic" and "straight out of fantasyland"? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110601358.html
- ALT4: ... that The West Wing's live, open presidential debate episode featured real-life television anchor and pundit Forrest Sawyer as the moderator? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110601358.html
- Reviewed: Elaine Estes
- Comment: I don't really like ALTs 3 or 4—open to suggestions!

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 07:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Moved from draft on 12/17. Long enough. Well sourced. Earwig detects nothing nefarious. With one exception, the hooks check out as short enough, interesting and sourced. The exception is alt3 where the article cited after the sentence at issue (here) doesn't include the "startlingly realistic" and "straight out of fantasyland" bit -- maybe that's from another source? (Not on point, but alt4 reminded me fondly of what a solid TV presence Forrest Sawyer was.) QPQ satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: Thanks so much for the speedy review! I swapped out ALT3 with the Washington Post source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does it. Good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]