Talk:The Supremes (The West Wing)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kavyansh.Singh in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from The Supremes (The West Wing) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
"Errors"
editIs Josh's statement about 6 moderates really an error in the script? To me, it seems more like a realistic portrayal of the use of hyperbole by a political operative. --Hickoryhillster (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that "The Supremes" was said to have foreseen the conflict following the death of Antonin Scalia, twelve years later? This West Wing Episode Predicted the Controversy Around Scalia’s Replacement in Eerie Detail... I’ve heard those kinds of tributes nonstop over the past few days. But this quote wasn’t said in the past few days. It had nothing to do with Scalia. It was said on The West Wing 12 years ago.
- Reviewed: IBM Palm Top PC 110
Converted from a redirect by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 08:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- ?
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Looks good to me. I notice, however, some close paraphrase from the Slate source -- could this be fixed? (Ping me with a response, or else I may not see it) jp×g 04:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @JPxG: do you mean the reaction, or the plot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- What I mean is that in the reaction section, all the quotes from Slate are attributed, so that's fine; but in the plot section, it seems to use almost all the same quotes from the episode as the Slate article, which gives me some pause. jp×g 05:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @JPxG: this better? Some of the quotes Slate uses are pivotal to the episode, I can't quite help that, but I hope this works. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me,
pass. jp×g 06:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy review! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me,
- What I mean is that in the reaction section, all the quotes from Slate are attributed, so that's fine; but in the plot section, it seems to use almost all the same quotes from the episode as the Slate article, which gives me some pause. jp×g 05:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
