Talk:Audie Murphy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This article is off to a good start; the prose is strong and the coverage of Murphy's WWII years, obviously the most important part, appears thorough. I've noted some smaller concerns below, but my biggest concern is that the article is constructed mostly from primary sources in its current form: documents from audiemurphy.com and Murphy's autobiography. This raises some concerns about reliability, but more importantly, it means that the article is largely limited to Murphy's World War II experiences, offering little discussion of his later career; for example, his extensive film and television career is covered in only four sentences. I'd suggest that these aspects of his life also be researched and included to meet the "main aspects" criterion for GA.

 Additional information needed Here's the problem I find on the sourcing. It's either Murphy's book, or it's audiemurphy.com There is scant little other information out there about his military career. One of the great ironies is that when I checked a lot of the military base Sergeant Audie Murphy Club sites, many of them had done a copy and paste from the old, unimproved Wikipedia article. This issue of sourcing on his military service is a stickler. Conversely, I found it a lot easier to source the filmography. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And if you've gotten as far as the references section on the honors and awards page, then you've read that all the government documents on Murphys service record are scanned at audiemurphy.com - that includes all the testimonies from witnesses that won him the awards. That site has all the information available, as far as military service goes. It just doesn't look good by Wikipedia standards. — Maile (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For GA, the current level of sourcing should be okay. To approach FA, though, I'd definitely suggest balancing with secondary sources like [http://www.amazon.com/Dogface-Soldiers-Regiment-Infantry-Division/dp/1468104497/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361923510&sr=1-12&keywords=audie+murphy], [http://www.amazon.com/American-Hero-Death-Audie-Murphy/dp/0953867706/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361923510&sr=1-3&keywords=audie+murphy] or [http://www.amazon.com/No-Name-Bullet-Biography-Murphy/dp/067081511X/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361923510&sr=1-10&keywords=audie+murphy]. You're more familiar with the sources for Murphy than I, though, so perhaps there's reason to be skeptical of one or all of these. But it seems like there are a few sources out there that could give a secondary-source perspective. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I will work on finding the suggested books. I'd rather not have to purchase them. Hopefully, that sourcing can wait until FA. But it's a piece of information I've needed about what it takes to get this to FA. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I hear you! Like I said, I think you're good for now as long as we can fill in the rest of his life (like the film career, etc.) without them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

More suggestions below; let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clicking through to the filmography article, it appears that you've done a great job there writing up these aspects of Murphy's career that I mentioned above. What I'd suggest would be to include a 4-6 paragraph summary of the filmography in the main article, instead of the current 4-sentence version. That way the main article also has sufficient coverage of this important aspect of Murphy's life. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I can work on the summary of the film career over on the main article. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. That would address my main concern. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've made small copyedits for grammar and style as I went; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and double-check that I haven't accidentally introduced any errors.
• "One of his namesakes assisted with his birth." -- this seems like an awfully minor detail to include in the lead.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Boarded out, he worked" -- can you clarify the "boarded out" here?

 Additional information needed This is Murphy's terminology. He did not elaborate. Any other place it's mention is verbatim from Murphy. I'm open to suggestions on this. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say leave it, then. Perhaps it can be clarified in the future from another source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The section "date of birth and height discrepancies" appears to lack secondary sources--are there any sources that explicitly compare these documents and discuss the discrepancies between them?

I'll work on this. There was much Discussion earlier, and it needs to be addressed. If I find nothing else, what do you suggest? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest leaving it, but finding a way to give it less weight in the article. It gets a lot of article space (a whole subsection) for a controversy that appears to exist only on a Wikipedia talk page. Maybe it could be mentioned in just a sentence or two that varying brithdates for Murphy exist, or moved into an explanatory footnote. Does that seem reasonable? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Per your excellent suggestion, I put the entire date of birth controversy into explanatory footnotes. I completely eliminated the height issue - that was more likely clerical error with each medical exam. I have to admit, it looks a lot better with the DoB issue down in footnotes. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks.

• ""Existence has taken on the quality of a dream in which I am detached ..."" -- I'm not sure this quotation is needed here; it seems like a mere restatement of the "complete daze" description, and the transition is awkward grammatically.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Murphy's 1949 autobiography To Hell and Back spent 14 weeks on the bestseller lists when it was originally published." -- a reliable source should be given for this figure (not Amazon)

 Done - I've removed the claim entirely. Another one of those things that everybody copies from everybody with no verification, except Amazon. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Publishing history of To Hell and Back -- listing every edition of this book and its OCLC seems like an unneeded level of detail. It's not a dealbreaker for GA status, but my personal suggestion would be to cut it.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

*The discussion of Murphy's film career is quite brief. How did critics view his performances? Were any of his Westerns particularly notable? Was the television series a success?

• • This isn't a reliable source, but even this quick summary suggests there's much more that could be written here. Ditto this.
• I'm not sure the thwarted carjacking qualifies as a "legal issue"--did Murphy face any legal complications from the incident?

 Additional information needed For the moment, I created a Miscellaneous category for this. I'm open to suggestion. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I retitled it "Attempted carjacking", and also moved the section up so it appeared before some things that happened later chronologically. Is that okay with you? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The incident in which Murphy was charged with attempted murder could use a bit more detail (such as the allegation that Murphy fired a pistol at the man, and the circumstances of the incident).

I'll work on this. Don't know exactly what is out there, but I'll look. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done This is taken care of now. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd strongly suggest cutting the text of Murphy's tombstone; it adds no new information, is unusual in its formatting, and the text is clearly visible in the image anyway. At a minimum I'd suggest moving the lengthy "key to abbreviations" text to a footnote.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "An unknown person maintains a small American flag" -- is there a source for this, and are we sure this is up-to-date (i.e., it's still being done?)

 Done - removed - I didn't insert the original text and have no idea where that came from. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "First Lieutenant Murphy was one of very few company-grade officers ever to be awarded the Legion of Merit. That decoration is usually awarded only to officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel and above" -- is there a source for this? This analysis seems like a bit of WP:SYNTH, given that the source doesn't mention Murphy at all. It also seems like it would fit better in the earlier discussion of his awards--unless the legion of merit was added posthumously?

 Done - removed - I didn't insert the original text and have no idea where that came from. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Texas Congressman Ralph Hall commemorated the 25th anniversary" -- do many sources about Murphy mention this event? It seems fairly trivial for a man of Murphy's fame, and relies only on a primary source document. This might be better cut, or moved to the awards and honours subpage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - moved to Audie Murphy honors and awards — Maile (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Remaining

• I think the only significant issue remaining is to flesh out the summary of Murphy's film/TV career. Once that's done, I'll make a second top-to-bottom copyedit to be sure you and I haven't inadvertently added new errors or problems with our changes.

I'm working on this and hope to have it done by today. Just double checking on some references. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've re-worked this. Citation bot was run to catch any reference duplications. Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector shows no copyright issues. An odd piece of history I ran across was that the movie Lee Harvey Oswald was watching when they nabbed him for the JFK assassination, was War is Hell that was narrated by Murphy. If you think it doesn't belong in that section, you can remove it. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks excellent. And I agree that the Oswald bit is interesting enough to include. I'll do that second full copyedit now; I imagine we're close to done with this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• On a much smaller note, now that the reference to the Congressional Record has been moved out of the article body, it should also be removed from the lead. Personally, I would suggest simply eliminating the reference in the lead to his being a poet; it doesn't appear to have been a significant aspect of his life, didn't make him any money or win any awards, and wasn't mentioned in the summary biographies I looked at through Gale databases, etc.

 Done — Maile (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The phrase in the lead, "his 1949 World War II narrative", implies that the book could be either fiction or memoir; "memoir" might be a bit more specific here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough and checklist

Okay, only a few small issues on this pass.

• "His first wife, Wanda Hendrix, claimed that he once held her at gunpoint" -- claimed should probably be written as "stated" or "said" here per WP:WTA -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Golfstein claimed that Murphy arrived with the client and a boxer who was never named ... He also claimed Murphy stuck a gun in his stomach and tried to abduct him." Another case that should probably be changed to "said" per WP:WTA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "However, Hoffa was freed seven months after Murphy's death and no forensic evidence has arisen to suggest the plane crash was in any way connected to the Hoffa case or not the result of an accident" -- does the source support this second statement? I admit that I only skimmed it, but it seems not to mention the "no evidence has arisen". This perhaps needs to be cut as original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Removed everything about Hoffa. I'm not the one who originally put that there, and it's always bothered me. One of those conspiracy things that's not definite. Just as well to have it gone. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't seem widely mentioned in sources on Murphy, so no need to have it and confuse the issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Article is well illustrated with appropriate and captioned images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass