Talk:Flem D. Sampson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see What is a good article?)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * 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)

Good article. Just two small issues I'm not sure how to deal with. --maclean (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One image: Fair use ok.
 * Conclusion
 * 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)