Talk:Ways and Means (The West Wing)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleWays and Means (The West Wing) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 6, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The West Wing episode "Ways and Means" was co-written by Eli Attie and Gene Sperling, two former employees of the Bill Clinton White House?
Current status: Delisted good article

PhD[edit]

"A more likely error is when Connie Britton, as Connie Tate, says that she has a "Ph.D. in political economy from Oxford". The University of Oxford, however, does not award Ph.D.s; the corresponding degree from Oxford would be a D.Phil."

It's pretty common practice to refer to it as a PhD anyway though since not everyone will know what you're talking about if you say DPhil. I and most of the Oxford grad students I know say PhD. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard talk of Oxford PhDs. Maybe it should be changed to "inaccuracy" rather than "error". Lampman (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it deserves to remain at all, really: I'd say enough people refer to Oxford PhDs that this instance is not notable. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all those links are dead. I'll contact my cousin, who's an Oxford Ph.D. ... or whatever. Lampman (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Came across this again today. I've removed the whole thing because it's really such a common 'inaccuracy' that it doesn't seem worth mentioning. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ways and Means (The West Wing)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm going to review this GA Nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, this article meets all of the GA criteria, so I'm going to promote it.

1.well-worded, clear, organized
2.reliable refs
3.relevant material
4.NPOV
5.stable
6.screenshots all have tags

Good job. If you're aiming for FA, you might try adding some more refs or lengthening the article (the lead could be a bit longer), but all in all it's pretty comprehensive. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity error?[edit]

Isn't it mentioned in "In This White House", that the President vetoed the Republican's education bill a year before the episode was set (while discussing the Democrats' alternative)? In this episode, they say this will be his first veto. If I am accurate, is this not worth mentioning? --Svippong 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ways and Means (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]