- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Debate (The West Wing)
- ... 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).
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)
- @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)
