Talk:Flem D. Sampson

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flem D. Sampson/GA1. 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 Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)

• 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flem D. Sampson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519092825/http://wvuscholar.wvu.edu:8881/ to http://wvuscholar.wvu.edu:8881/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)