Talk:Francis L. Sampson/GA1

GA Review

Passed.IntentionallyDense(talk)02:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article(edit|visual edit|history)·Article talk(edit|history)·Watch

Nominator:Darth Stabro(talk·contribs)16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer:IntentionallyDense(talk·contribs)22:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon.IntentionallyDense(talk)22:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1.Well-written:
	1a.the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience;spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose looks good, no complaints.IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b.it complies with theManual of Styleguidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction,andlist incorporation.	Lead is good.IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2.Verifiablewithno original research,as shown by asource spot-check:
	2a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b.reliable sourcesarecited inline.All content thatcould reasonably be challenged,except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See comments below.IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c.it containsno original research.	IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d.it contains nocopyright violationsorplagiarism.	IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3.Broad in its coverage:
	3a.it addresses themain aspectsof the topic.	See comments below.IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.IntentionallyDense(talk)02:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style).	IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4.Neutral:it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense(talk)00:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5.Stable:it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit waror content dispute.	IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6.Illustrated,if possible, bymediasuch asimages,video,oraudio:
	6a.media aretaggedwith theircopyright statuses,andvalid non-free use rationalesare provided fornon-free content.	IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b.media arerelevantto the topic, and havesuitable captions.	IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7.Overall assessment.	Great work. This article is an easy pass for me. Special thanks to the nominator for taking the time to email me the sources!IntentionallyDense(talk)02:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bless us, O Lord, and these Thy gifts, which we are about to receive through Thy bounty through Christ Our Lord, Amen."I'm not seeing this in ref 6.IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a holdover from before I refactored the article. That is the prayer - cf.Grace (meals)#Typical Christian grace prayers- but if it would be better with it removed I can take it out. It might flow better without it, actually.... ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking now, the specific wording is supported by his bookLook Out Below!(from which much of the article was based before I rewrote it), but I haven't cited it as it's a primary source. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love a good footnote. I've moved it down there and cited the book and linked the relevant wiki page. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History.com isn't the most reliable source. Is there a more reliable source for that information?IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is the Des Moines Register article also (I can get you that if you like, see my other reply) as well as Sampsons' book (which I have not included as it's a primary source) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the info covered in the article also in the Des Moines Register article? If so I would just remove the history.com source. If not then I think it's fine seeing as a reliable source does back it up.IntentionallyDense(talk)00:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IA is down right now so I can't verify the book content and I don't have access to newspapers.com right now. I'll ask around as to what I should do moving forward but I'm going to put the source review on hold until I have access to more of the sources.IntentionallyDense(talk)22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me an email via Wikipedia's mail function, I can send you the newspapers.com source PDFs. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}22:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try emailaing you (last time it didn't work lol). If email doesn't work I've applied for access to newspapers.com and the estimated wait time is 5 days which isn't too bad.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs sent. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be rewritten so that it doesn't need citations. (seeWP:LEADCITE).Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead sectionis helpful for this.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks good. Do you think the movie stuff is notable enough for the lead (just asking since you took it out)IntentionallyDense(talk)00:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, but I wasn't sure what else to put there so it wasn't just a standalone sentence looking awkward. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}00:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first time you use an acronym such as POW it should be spelt out in full.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sampson was briefly in Japan after the end of the war.Since this was after the war should it be put in the "Post-World War II" section? Also is there any info on his time in Japan or why he went?IntentionallyDense(talk)23:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall (given that the IA is down! arg!) not much is said in the book about what he did other than that he was deployed there, but it wasn't for very long. While the war was over, I included it in that section as it was immediately post-war and seemingly in the context of winding down operations, etc. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He retired as Chief of Chaplains on July 31, 1971Is there a reason given for his retirement? 23:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't recall there being a reason, no. It seems as if a four-year term is common for the position: cf.Chief of Chaplains of the United States Army~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}23:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense thank you.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your source "Chief of Army's chaplains paying visit to Alaska posts" Sampson has published two books and was also a fairly successful tennis player. I think being a published author should be added and possibly the tennis part (only if other sources mention it)IntentionallyDense(talk)23:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Record also mentions this so I think its notable. The tennis stuff less so but I do think the books are notable.IntentionallyDense(talk)23:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the books to the Legacy section; they were mentioned in the See Also but you're right, they should be more visible. I'll see if I can find more on the tennis stuff down the line, I didn't think it super notable but also I don't think the line of winning numerous titles had stuck out before, just that he played it. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs}00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The tennis stuff doesn't need to be added imo but the books are notable. Thank you.IntentionallyDense(talk)02:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.