Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The West Wing (TV series)

The West Wing (television)

See the talk page for an archive of solved issues (to make the FAC readable). Staxringold 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. The West Wing has been on for seven years now, and this article contains a good bit of information about the show, including discussion of critical reactions. Much of the article does not carry a spoiler warning because those sections do not discuss plot elements, unlike other television featured articles. The article went through an extensive month-long peer review, archived here, which discussed and fixed most of the major issues regarding tone, scope, and length. Multiple forks and plentiful, but not overwhelming, use of well-licensed pictures make this article a great choice for featured article status. -Scm83x 08:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The lead section could use a slight touch-up, though, I agree. I'm going to try and make a table for the actor/actress award winners right now, to make it sleeker. Staxringold 13:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The only objection I have had upon reading this article was the length of the lead section, and that has now been fixed. Andrew Levine 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, all my objections have been addressed, great work guys.--nixie 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• support for this article as a FAC. Thanks for all the work so far! -Rebelguys2 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The additions address all of my comments. Well done, everyone. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great show, great accompanying article. Set out far better than any fansites, or even the show's own NBC page. Harro5 21:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks good! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Kudos to Scm83x for the effort and levelheadedness. Article is great and just keeps on improving. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of this article is rooted in unverifiable fancruft. The sections on timeline skew, off-year presidential elections, etc. are based in the unverifiable inference that scattered anomalies in characters' dialogue and prop displays were intended to reflect a radically different history of American politics than occurred in the real world. The article shows no evidence that any contributor to it is aware that such variations are among the standard conventions of political fiction (from Alan Drury to Richard Clarke, probably much longer). Also, the show has been extensively reviewed and commented on, both in connection with the original broadcasts and the DVD releases, and virtually none of the commentary/criticism is discussed in the article. There are also other clear NPOV/verifiability problems ("most viewers continue to enjoy The West Wing, arguing that it is still far superior to other shows and unique among drama series in its theme"; "A large, fully connected set of the White House allows the producers to capture an almost reality TV feel"; "The result of this kidnapping was the invasion and bombing of Qumar, a terror-supporting Muslim country, similar to the real-world invasion and bombing of Afghanistan."). This is a pretty bad article, all things considered, and given the amount of useful, well-researched, easy-to-find source material. Much of it is really thinly veneered original research. Monicasdude 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Please. The timeline skew (which I myself objected to) is based on very verifiable facts in the show like dialogue and props. If a law exists in both TWW world and reality it presents a point by which the timelines can be connected. In addition, the "Ronald Reagan" hospital wouldn't be named that were he not president, nor would the variety of presidential portraits be hanging in the White House were they not presidents. The off-year elections aren't even questioned, there are numerous signs and dialogue references to the 2002 and 2006 election years. Finally, as for the POV complaints:

• Quote 1: I'll change most to many, but it does still pull in millions of viewers and a primetime spot on NBC.

What's unverifiable (and unsourced) in Quote 1 is the claim that "most" or "many" viewers "argue" that TWW is "far superior" to other shows. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed the quote to read "However, many viewers continue to tune into The West Wing every week, with the show currently averaging eight million viewers a week." and provided a link to the latest Nielsen Ratings for the show. This definitely makes the statement a hard fact. -Scm83x 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quote 2: It does... This has been commented on both by cast members in commentaries (on how things like the hallway scenes lend a realistic feel to the show) and reviews.

It's an unsourced aesthetic judment presented as fact, and therefore violates NPOV/NOR policies. And "realistic" and "reality TV" aren't exactly synonymous. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the reference to realistic and changed the wording to "A large, fully connected set of the White House allows the producers to create shots with very few cuts and long continuous master shots of staff members walking through the hallways, which have become a show trademark." -Scm83x 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quote 3: Again, that's exactly what it was. Did you just pull random quotes to try and present a justification for your objection? The war on terrorism couldn't be written into the already existing season, and they couldn't have 9-11 happen a year later, so they created a fictional nation on which they could declare war (to avoid PC complaints) and a fictional justification (again, to avoid the touchy subject of 9-11). Staxringold 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In which episode was war declared against Qumar? In which episode was Qumar invaded? In which episode was the government of Qumar toppled by invading American forces, parallel to Afghanistan? According to the Wikipedia article on Qumar, the country's fictive history is nothing like what you present, in the article or here. Saying that the Qumar plotline was "similar" to the real-world intervention in Afghanistan is, at best, an unsourced opinion -- and an opinion based on events that don't seen to have "actually" happened on the television program. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to begin with, analagous situations do not necessarily mean things progressed identically. The point of that sentence is to point out that terrorism is being discussed in The West Wing as well. War was never declared in the War in Afghanistan either (the US hasn't been in a declared war since WWII), but I think what you are talking about happened in "The Dogs of War" when Walken made similar declarations to Bush's Axis of Evil State of the Union. Again, the invasion/toppling of the Taliban is not the same as that of Qumar. The very purpose of an analogy is to take objects A and B, which are not the same and compare similar aspects. Each bombing and conflict represents the beginning of a more active US position in fighting terrorism, which is the entire point of that quote. The first bombings took place in the aforementioned "Dogs of War".Staxringold 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You've edited the article to correct some of the errors in the discussion of Qumar, which is good, but problems remain there. The claim that Qumar is based on Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan isn't unreasonable, but it is unsourced and therefore has NPOV/NOR (no original research)/verifiability problems. The statement that the Zoe Bartlet kidnapping was the beginning of the show's "war on terrorism" is entirely unsourced and is similarly in violation of Wikipedia policies. I know it's hard, in dealing with material like this, to separate out one's own interpretations, but that's required by Wikipedia policy for all articles, and is particularly important for FAs. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's simply rediculous and wrong. Not every single sentence on Wikipedia is sourced. Why? Because if it was every^[1] sentence^[2] would^[3] read^[4] like^[5] this^[6]. It is already discussed in the article (and sourced by the producers/writers) that Qumar was a general mixture of Middle Eastern nations so the show could deal with Middle Eastern issues. As for the war on terrorism, it's already been discussed. The show dealt with the president, the real president had declared war on terrorism (specifically Middle Eastern) and the show created a Middle Eastern terrorist storyline for that and following seasons? Gasp, I wonder if they are connected? [1 (not sourced as requires payment to read)] and [2]. Staxringold 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "Qumar was a general mixture of Middle Eastern nations" contradicts the statement that "Qumar [is] a terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern state based on both Taliban Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia." Nothing you say supports the specific statements in the article I quoted, and several of your comments indicate violations of the NPOV/NOR policies.

Resolution. This line has been eliminated in favor of "Qumar, a terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern state, is repeatedly a source of trouble for the Bartlet administration." This removes all references to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. I think this should resolve that issue.

If the "timeline skew" theories and everything associated with them aren't fancruft, and merit encyclopedic treatment, there ought to be some evidence, some verifiable indications, that the show's creators intended to set their storylines in a United States with such a radical difference in its political history. Otherwise, the discussions fail Wikipedia policy requirements, and shouldn't be included in the substance of an article, no less a featured article. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So long as the Endor Holocaust has an article you have no arguement. Besides that, Wikipedia articles often make inferences that are obviously implied in the material. Since Bartlet was re-elected in '02 and Santos/Vinick is '06, obviously something set the timeline off kilter. So long as we know that, and know real world events/people, we can draw out the theories proposed there. Finally, you're ignoring the core point which is that is a fork article and should have no bearing on this articles FAC. Staxringold 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Endor Holocaust article is not terribly good, but at least it complies with Wikipedia verifiability policy. It presents the material involved as non-canonical, and describes the various fannish theories, rather representing the material as "factual" (to the extent that the term is relevant in describing a fictional construct.) The West Wing article, in contrast, simply grafts the disputable inferences of a groups of fans into the fictional construct. The entire enterprise rests on the unveriable assumption that the dates on which the television program aired in the real world are roughly congruent with the dates on which fictional events occurred in the fictional universe in which the fictional narrative takes place. Unless the article can cite the shows' creators in support of the "timeline skew" hypothesis, or present indisputable evidence that the scattered bits of dialogue and images which support cannot reasonably be viewed as nothing more than the sort of errors and anomalies that are almost unavoidable when producing a regular television series, the material related to it should not be presented as "factual" (within the fictional construct). To do so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. And such material is not limited to the fork article, but is present (often in headings, in large type) in the main article. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not dependant on that. We have references to real presidents and years for events that happened in TWW that also happened in the real world. US Presidents in TWW serve 4 year terms. Fact. Bartlet was re-elected in 2002. Fact. Bartlet was not elected through a special election. Fact. Thus, Bartlet was initially elected in 1998. Bill Clinton's presidential portrait is seen in the situation room and his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already law. But wait! Bill Clinton served from 1993-2001. And thus we have our timeline skew theory (which has source material, so you can't kvetch about that) which draws on years mentioned in the show for events that also happened in reality. Using these years you can create a timeline of events, which is exactly what happened. And again, widely discussed fan theories on content are often mentioned, whereas this one has source material and is wholly based on reality and things mentioned in canon. Staxringold 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Bartlet was re-elected in 2002. Fact." Obviously not a "fact", since Jed Bartlet is a fictional character. You cite no verifiable source for the claim that the statement is "true" within the West Wing fictional construct. The difference between this article and the articles you link to is that the other articles present the various non-canonical hypotheses as hypotheses, not "facts," and are not parts of the main articles on the canonical fictions. The Star Wars article, quite sensibly, note that some of the inconsistencies noted "may be simple mistakes that have no explanation other than human error," and that "Almost any of these inconsistencies can be explained as an oversight by Lucas or an intended change in Lucas's idea of how the Star Wars universe works." Monicasdude 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The episode in which the fictional character Bartlet was re-elected was shown in 2002. The next election is being shown on TV in March 2006. So, 2002 and 2006 election dates. It is only logical to assume that 2002-4=1998 would be the year Bartlet was first elected, also backed up by references to the administration having been in office "1 year already" in episodes airing fall of 2000. This would put the election in 1998. I do think that it would make good sense to add a disclaimer that the writers and producers have never claimed that the show follows a one year:one year ratio, so it is possible that the show skipped a year. -Scm83x 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there is no verifiable source for the (rather dubious) claim that the original air dates of episodes in the real world are intended to be congruent with the dates that events "actually" occur in the fictional construct. All of the "evidence" supporting the increasingly wacky "timeline skew" hypotheses is more consistent, for example, with the hypothesis that, within the fictional construct, the show's first episodes "actually" occurred in 2002, and the idea that the relatively small number of anomalies remaining are best explained as imperfections in the fictional construct. It's not real, and it's not encylopedic to lose the distinction between fictional constructs and the real world. Monicasdude 15:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't saying that the election took place in the show's 2002 or 2006, but that they happened in our 2002 and 2006 (or will happen). I changed the header for the 1998 election to "Bartlet's first presidential election" and removed references to the 1998 election date from the article. -Scm83x 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. In regards to the comment of no criticism being discussed, please see the section labeled "Critical reactions" in the article, which uses multiple periodical and book sources to establish the critical view of the show. The main book used, and referenced multiple times at the end of the article, is "The West Wing: The American Presidency as Televison Drama," which can be seen on Amazon here. It is a collection of essays by communications, political science, English, history, and education professors regarding critical views of all aspects of the show. This book and other magazine sources, all footnoted and cited in the references section, provide the basis for the critical review section of the article. Thanks. -Scm83x 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Which pretty much proves my point. There's an extensive body of reviews and commentaries out there, principally devoted to treating the program as a dramatic work. And the article draws virtually all its critical references from a single book, which isn't particularly concerned with treating the show in terms of its art or its craft. The other references are mostly political commentary/criticism, not artistic. It's a huge gap in the article: no reviews or criticism of a TV show as a TV show. Monicasdude 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• The book has several essays written by film writing and film studies professors. I will add material from these essays later tonight to correct this issue. -Scm83x 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the problem. What privileges this book to be the only source of appropriate commentary on the program? TWW has been reviewed by major newspapers and magazines, and been the subject of hundreds if not thousands of commentaries. Presenting only the commentaries found in a single book (and arguably representing the POV of its editor as to what sort of commentary is appropriate) is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, or FA requirements. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Film criticism section has been added to article which does not include any references to the book. Articles are sourced from the Guardian and Salon. There is an entire paragraph concerning the downfalls of Sorkin's scripts, which I believe rounds out the article more wholly. -Scm83x 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not resolved. Added quotation from one critic, which again deals with politics more than the show's art/craft, and a generalization about the show's scripts. The article needs to present a well-researched description of the show's reception by critics, particularly with regard to the art/craft involved, to meet FA criteria. And by adding this unsourced, NPOV-violating comment as factual -- "This pandemic naiveté, and resulting perpetual optimism, are prevalent in Sorkin's scripts. Following the departure of Sorkin, consequent storylines, covering topics including death and treason, have revealed a more nuanced view of the world, a noticeable shift from Sorkin's scripts" -- the "resolution" edit does more damage to the article than improvement. Monicasdude 15:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Added quotations by other critics now concerning the use of steadicam tracking shots and a screenshot of one. The first quote doesn't talk so much about politics as it does about how unreal the script's presentation of politics and politicos is. This is a quality of the screenwriting, which should make it a criticism of Sorkin's writing. I am sourcing the last quote and changing it slightly to: "However, many fans believe that the show's scripts have changed since Sorkin left the show in 2003." This quote is referenced in the article. -Scm83x 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

A Truly Minor Point - three of the first four sentences start with "The show." That's not great writing. Also, don't FA's generally have more like a three paragraph intro? Kaisershatner 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed some of those in the intro. As for the introduction, Scm said he was working off the rule roughly 1 opening paragraph per 15000 words (I believe). Staxringold 04:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I was looking at the guidelines for leads. -Scm83x 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object While easy to read and packed with information, this article about a TV series is not comprehensive. It reads more like a subarticle, "Plot development and scriptwritng for ...", than a encyclopedic overview of the subject. Some specifics:

• No coverage of the production side - What production-related information there is is located in other areas and difficult to find. I want to know basics, stuff like: Shooting locations? Crew size and shooting style (e.g. is this a deluxe operation, or barebones?)? Shooting schedules (are actors together for long periods? compared to other TV series? etc) Tech details: any innovative use of video, CGI, editing, etc? Basic numbers: size of the crew; shooting ratio (eg raw footage to edited material?). I realize there is potentially endless detail, my critical finding is that there is a "reasonable" amount of basic info that should be here.

Response. None of the other featured articles concerning television shows go into this kind of detail regarding the production quality of the show. Very few people will be concerned with these points of minutia and if they are concerned about it, they should go to IMDB or try to find a book about these details. As of yet, I have not seen any information concerning most of these points, and I do not think there is much reason to include them. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For one, using existing FAs as isn't valid, as standards are (apparetly, rapidly) improving/getting tougher; many current FAs are a nomination away from FARC by current standards... Second, Very few people will be concerned with these points of minutia and if they are concerned about it, they should go to IMDB is a very presumptuous statement. "People" seem to like production info, if we go by the fact that practically every current feature film and established TV series has a "making of..." feature. DVDs regularly include a wealth of production info. Answering at least the basic production questions only makes common sense for a comprehensive article. Is IMDb a prerequisite for reading an article here? --Tsavage 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• No coverage of the commercial/business aspect The show is an entertainment business. Is it produced by an independent production house and sold to the network? What is the per episode production budget (and how does that compare with other comparable shows)? What kind of money are the principal actors making? Who are the main advertisers (and have their been advertisers who haven't participated because of the controversiality?) Again, I realize there is endless detail to be found; I'm simply looking for a "reasonable" amount of info describing this business aspect of the topic.

I will try to include maybe some of this information, but again... a lot of it is minutia. These details are not included in other television featured articles. Also, the article, once below 30kb, has crept back up to 35kb. This is getting very large again. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, referring to existing FAs is invalid, and citing article length as a reason for not including information is a non-starter. What sort of Xanax-based world view portrays a money-making TV series in the cutthroat US TV industry as no more than a bunch of character and plot development exercises and critical awards? --Tsavage 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Real-world accuracy It should be made clear exactly how accurate the overall portrayal of the White House is. Is this Tom Clancy-level detailed research, down to the right WH-branded sugar packets? Are the procedures and protocols accurate? Could a future historian study this series to gain an accurate picture of the functioning White House? Given both the nature of the series, and the current empahsis on real-world connections of the article, making this explicit and plain is necessary.

To be a great article, the topic must be covered in full. The points above represent what are to me are obvious and serious holes in the coverage. --Tsavage 23:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response to "Real-world accuracy". As far as this point goes, I think the show's accuracy is made clear in the "Critical Reactions" section, detailed in subsections from "Legitimacy" to "The Left Wing," and to some extent "Film criticism." The first subsection, "Legitimacy," immediately states that "former White House staffers agree that the show "captures the feel [of the West Wing], shorn of a thousand undramatic details." In addition, subsequent sections include, "acclaim for the veracity of the series." Regardless, Sorkin, the show's creator, believes that "[his] obligation isn't to the truth." I think this is enough for us to get a good feel of "how accurate the overall portrayal of the White House is."
  • "Is this Tom Clancy-level research?" Obviously, the show's creator never meant for that to be a priority - "[his] obligation isn't to the truth."
  • "WH-branded sugar packets? Procedures and protocols accurate?" We know the show has some validity, though "not completely accurate in its portrayal of the actual West Wing." As a side note, there are mentions of WH-branded boxes of M&Ms in the show; however, that was obviously an interesting thing the writers threw in - they never planned for everything to be completely accurate, as it already states in the article. If "many former West Wing denizens applauded the show's depiction of the real West Wing," then the procedures and protocols depicted in the show must have some validity.
  • "Could a future historian study this series? (nature of the series, and the current empahsis [sic])" The show accurately depicts a functioning White House. Obviously, however, it's a fictitious Democratic government dealing with current events under a real-life Republican White House. As far as historical accuracy, there is none, but it brings a "useful insight to the views of the left," as seen in the subsection, "The Left Wing." -Rebelguys2 00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply (and for the [sic])! You make my point. Your comments could (should) be summarized in as little as a paragraph, appropriately placed within the aritcle outline (like, in a "Factual accuracy" section, or somesuch). With citations as required, it provides an interesting and necessary aspect of full show coverage that is currently not present. --Tsavage 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I do not believe that Rebelguys2 makes your point. He rather, proves that all of the information is there but the reader has to assimilate it for himself, much like a normal encyclopedia. We can't spoon feed assumptions to people, they have to decide on their own the answers to the questions you raised based on what facts we impart to them in the article. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is that really your well-considered response? Am I just pissing in the wind with my comments, about lack of production info, lack of business info, lack of info on the level of real-world accuracy of the show? Are these things that "most people" couldn't care less about? Are these not significant aspects of a TV show? Am I simply possessed of a subnormal intellect, that failed to assimilate and synthesize the answers to these questions from the article, where other, "normal" people would easily have? --Tsavage 03:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response to Production Side and Commercial and Business Aspect. I'm somewhat in agreement with Tsavage here, and recommend a new section called "Production and distribution," or something of the like, with perhaps two subsections concerning your two original bullet point. It's not a spoiler, so it'd probably best flow if we stuck it between "Plot" and "Show's evolution." I think both of these topics can be condensed into one section; I think it's important to mention some of it, but, admittedly, a lot of it is just overly detailed. I wouldn't plan on talking about the 1.33:1 aspect ratio in the 1999-2000 compared with the 1.78:1 aspect ratio they used later, and other specifics you mentioned above. I know you weren't really expecting that, but I'd just like to emphasize that this kind of detail for the "Production and distribution" section is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. -Rebelguys2 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Followup to Production and distribution. After looking over the newly researched information, this is really not going to be a substantial section. Do we need to know how much each actor makes? No, that's too detailed. We'll make a small note of salary ranges in the "Cast" section. Do we need a list of the dozens of filming locations? No, that's completely unnecessary. We'll make a note of where the primary set is, in the lead, perhaps. Special effects? We already noted that the show is dialogue-centric, and some camera use such as the moving hallway shots, and don't need to mention various companies that provided maybe an explosion/gunshot or two each season. Much of the information is already there, and this article primarily needs minor additions to existing sections. The "Behind the Scenes" documentaries you find in the DVDs of old shows are there for the fans of the show - i.e., those who will actually buy the DVD - because they know the show well enough to want to know all the details. It's there to satiate the appetite of an often nearly obsessive fanbase. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose; rather, while your topics are valid, they only require a passing mention. I fail to see the need for too many numbers and figures. -129.116.44.25 06:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was me, Rebelguys2. I somehow got logged out. Regardless, my resolution to this is to add small details into the lead, the cast section, and a few other sections...there's simply no need for an entire section to regurgitate fact after fact about mundane production details. -Rebelguys2 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have made most of these changes. -Scm83x 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response to Real-World Accuracy. I think that "Legitimacy" covers what you wanted in "Factual accuracy," Tsavage. The "Critical reactions" section introduces us to three, distinct subsections, "Legitimacy," which describes the accuracy of the general depiction of life in the White House, "Social impact," which outlines how the show can be used as a teaching tool because of its accuracy but admitting it's melodramatic parts, and "The Left Wing," showing how the show is fictionally under a Democratic administration but can still give us an outlook on current events from a different point of view. This is clear enough. Regardless, both Wikipedia style and good writing wants us to give concrete examples like this - not have overarching, somewhat pointless summaries for every section. See here. These subsections are clear-cut and immediately following a brief introduction into the "Critical reactions" section which, in a large part, details the show's accuracy. It's not that we don't want to spoon-feed the content to people - it's that we already are, and resumming these three sections would be completely redundant. -Rebelguys2 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)