CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

What a Week

Canadian Radio Show

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 15, 2026
Entity authorityQ7991554
Source-derived summary

What A Week was a Canadian political satire show on CBC Radio One that aired on Saturdays in 2003. Debuting on April 12, 2003, it ran for two 13-episode seasons. Following the satirical tradition of Royal Canadian Air Farce, the program poked fun at the past week's news stories, through impressions, comedy sketches, songs, and editorial commentary.

The show was written by Dean Jenkinson. Other writers included Paul Mather, Al Rae, Jerry Schaefer and George Westerholm, and featured the voices of Tony Daniels, Deann deGruijter, Ray Landry and Ron Rubin.

Reception

Tom Fletcher, editor of the Maple Ridge News in British Columbia, complained about the "western hick" humour which was a recurring theme in CBC programs including What A Week.

Editorial summary

“What a Week” enters the record as canadian Radio Show. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what What, Week and Canadian can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2003—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around What, Week and Canadian.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“What a Week” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, What, Week and Canadian provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7991554. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2003.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “What a Week”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow What a Week primary sources, What a Week archive and What research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “What a Week”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from What a Week” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.