Talk:Manchester (The West Wing)

Manchester (The West Wing) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 5, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that, in spite of lobbying from New Hampshire residents, the episodes of The West Wing "Manchester Part I and Part II" were filmed in Bluemont, Virginia instead?

Television: Episode coverage / 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 Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the West Wing task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester Part I and Part II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Are TV.com and Television Without Pity reliable sources?

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review! The question of sources is a good one, and something I have struggled a bit with. Going by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples I'd say that TWoP is reasonably reliable, while TV.com (and also IMDb) are borderline, due to a high amount of user contributed content. The problem is that it's almost impossible to find alternative sources for much of this information, as I've explained in the review of another episode. I've used the more reliable sources whenever they could be found, and these sources mostly in cases where they should be expected to get it right, such as casting and awards. Lampman (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I checked out Television Without Pity and it seems fine. But, I've been informed that TV.com is not a reliable source. Couldn't just you combine Refs. 3 and 9 for the Reel Awards? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've removed TV.com. Lampman (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like to thank Lampman for being patient in this review, but it needs to be clear that I was just doing my job of making sure that the article met GA standards. With that being said, congratulations, you know have a GA in your midst. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made an edit to this article, which was reverted for reason: "please don't unilaterally make drastic changes to articles that have gone through GA review" which I don't think is much of a reason at all. I have added [citation needed] tags to two assertions. If these assertions are not supported in a reasonable amount of time, I'll be redeleting the section. I may also provide sources that suggest the article is in fact currently lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.254.128 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Earliest citation according to http://www.wordspy.com/words/drinktheKool-Aid.asp is 1987 which is NOT before Jonestown as the article says. All sources I've looked at reference Jonestown, as the phrase has to do with fanatical devotion and it's leading to a lack of foresite to one's actions.

Why shouldn't the president be relieved?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's an interesting interpretation, and it might be part of the answer, that C.J. trivialises the president's lie by using the word "relieved". Mostly though, it's the fact that she speaks of war in those terms that is shocking. As Sam says later:

""He's relieved"...he might have to put American lives at risk and kill Haitian civilians 'cause it takes his mind off having lied to the electorate?"[1] Lampman (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manchester (The West Wing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic