Talk:Albert A. Murphree/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
A few comments:

The lede should either be all referenced, or without references.

Done I have moved the substantive reference from the lede to the third footnote. The first two footnotes remaining in the lede are not citations, but are explanatory footnotes regarding the confusing succession of names of Florida State University and the University of Florida. These explanations need to be included, but they seem most appropriately provided in explanatory notes rather than the body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait is of rather low quality; I can look into editing it a bit, but I think the best bet would be finding a new image if possible.

Agreed. It is the best contemporaneous photo available, but I am in contact with the university historian and see if the university will unconditionally release a head shot to be released to WikiCommons. Hopefully, they will. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a new image hopefully coming in soon, it's not an issue for this review. Hope your correspondence works out! Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references could be shortened, the prose content converted into notes, which might be more efficient in formatting them.

Hmm. Rather than creating a new "Notes" section, I would ask to keep these two explanatory notes regarding the evolution of the two universities' names as explanatory in-line footnotes. Any problem with that? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, and this may just be my browser, that the lowest image is pushing the references to the side of the page, making the formatting awkward. Try moving it up a bit?

Not quite sure what to do here, because I cannot see what you're seeing. I have placed the auditorium photo to either break the "See also" tool line on a wide monitor (good layout to break long section lines) or remain completely above the tool line on a narrow monitor. If you want to take a crack at moving the photo to get better placement results across a range of monitor sizes, please do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the image up, which makes the references fill the entire page. It looks much better, and is less of an issue. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ISBN for all the books in the Bibliography would be nice if possible.

Done All available ISBNs are already included. Of course, the 1928 book is pre-ISBNS, the unpublished manuscript does not have one, and the 1853-2003 anniversary book oddly does not seem to have an ISBN, either. Maybe because it was published by the university and was not offered for sale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see after an initial reading. Reviewer: Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, for your review, comments and suggestions. Please let me know if you have any other changes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for writing a great article. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]