Talk:Flem D. Sampson/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Notes
"lost by razor-thin margins" - razor-thin refers to a measurement of space, not vote-counting."a majority of over 32,000 votes...700,000 cast...landslide" - if 32000/700000 = 5%, is winning by 5% is a landslide?- "Among its minor accomplishments..." - not clear on what 'its' refers to: the Governor or the leglislature? I don't see how defeating a bill would be an accomplishment for a legislature composed of several parties.
- I've tried to work this out myself, but I don't fully get it yet. Whose 'accomplishments' were these: Democrats or Republicans? Is 'accomplishments' the correct word? It's called a "do-nothing session" yet one of its accomplishments is defeating a bill?...unless they were purposely trying to make it a do-nothing session and defeating the bills helped accomplish this goal. If I'm reading the reference correctly, the ban refers to both betting and teaching and so should be plural. -maclean (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure if my brain didn't go in gear this morning or what, but I see what you're saying now. I've made another attempt to clean this up that I think will make more sense. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. -maclean (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- One image: Fair use ok.
- Conclusion
Good article. Just two small issues I'm not sure how to deal with. --maclean (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Both should be addressed now. Thanks for your review. Let me know if you find additional issues. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)