Wikipedia:Peer review/Audie Murphy/archive1

Audie Murphy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate Audie Murphy for Featured Article and would like to know what needs to be changed and/or fixed to meet the criteria for FA nomination.

Thanks, — Maile (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by MarcusBritish

General

Does not appear to be "brilliantly and professionally" written yet, for FA standards. Is very blunt in places, lack in-depth information, lacks biographical relevance in parts. Needs to be refocused and strengthened in places.

Done - Lead

Short, to the point, but not very inspiring. Would suggest leaving the lead until last, and rewriting it from scratch to reflect the article better. Lead should not require in-line citations, as it is a summary of the article, which should hold the references, so a lead should not contain anything not in the main article.

I've just cleaned the citations out of the lead. Will hold off re-working the lead until the rest of the article has been tackled. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely reworked the lead.— Maile (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Infobox

Photo plus signature plus medal is very crowded. Picture and signature need separating in graphical editor, signature background should be transparent (PNG) and displaying under the signature parameter of {{Infobox military person}}. Not sure where the medal needs to go, but side-by-side looks poor.

Moved medal image down to section "Military honors and rank". Infobox looks much better. I'm no good working with images, so separating the signature from the image needs to be handled by someone who knows what they're doing on that type of thing. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly do this, as I use Photoshop so can manage the requirements. Not sure if signature images have to be done or uploaded in any special manner, but I'll check in a moment on here and Commons. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Early life
Done - Childhood

Done - Not sure if I see the need in birth/death dates of every member of his family, is seems rather crowded, given that he had 11 siblings, and as none of these are wiki-linked, I can only assume they were not notable (each name should be checked for an article, however, incase). Removing these dates would be more practical in paragraph format, or convert the 11 names to a list with name – born–died. It should be clearly referenced.

Changed appropriately. Depending on the reference, he was either the sixth, seventh or even ninth child. I changed it to "one of twelve" and left out the names of the siblings. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Done - Regarding his date of birth. I think we will never be sure. Even though the State of Texas certified it as 1925 mentioning Audie himself did the misleading. Maybe to join the military. But here's his 1954 application to join the Freemasons in his own handwriting, where he specifically says his birthdate was 1924.— Maile (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various discussions in archives, Talk:Audie_Murphy/Archive_1#Year_of_birth being rather lengthy and possibly inconclusive. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph on the inconsistencies on both his birth date and height, with referencing. The reader can make up their own mind . — Maile (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Enlistment

Double mention of his height, within the space of a few lines, needs work, once should be enough.

Reworded — Maile (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Battles
Done - Medal of Honor action and valor awards

Majority of references are the same two sources [1] and [5] throughout these two sections. Extra sourcing might be useful, if available, to give a broader perspective.

As done as it can be, all things considered. I've added extra sourcing where I can find it. But the fact remains the the Audie Murphy memorial site and its Audie Murphy Research Foundation is the best sourcing. They have all the military records on PDF, and not a whole lot of that information is available else where. — Maile (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done = Last two paragraphs are completely unreferenced.

His entire Military Career has undergone a re-working. It's in a decent cohesive, chronological order now. I've scattered quotes from Murphy in the text, so the reader can see it through his eyes. Did a lot of sourcing. There's probably some tweaking in order, but as a whole, I'm done with this part. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military honors and rank
Done - Medal of Honor citation

Done - First paragraph after the citation is mostly unreferenced following the first sentence. There is little, if any, detail regarding his service, just a bland list of campaigns and awards. Perhaps the previous "battles" section could be expanded to fully discuss military action in greater depth, and this section rewritten to discuss the awards more clearly, as he is famous for being one of the most decorated American soldiers of the war, I'd expect to know more about those decorations.

Per a suggestion from the Audie Murphy talk page, the citation was moved up to the MoH action and valors award section, and the inline citation source was changed to the United States Army online page on Audie' citation. The two paragraphs that were below it were moved up in the section above it and will be dealt with in that section. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Rank and date

Seems fine, although it would normally better to have his military career discussed in prose form, and mention his promotions as and when received also, that just a list plonked on the page for reference, which feels a bit disjointed.

Done - Decorations, awards, and badges

There has been much debate over using these type of image-based sections, and I don't want to open a fresh can of worms, but if you're aiming for FA, you can bet someone will have their gripes about it. Given that Murphy is notable for his decorations, and these are not just here for show, they are important. However, my view is that the current setup is poor. The three-part table is not visually appealing, and more-importantly not informative. The tables contain images and their names. Firstly, we can see these in the infobox, so it's repetition. Secondly, they don't relate to Murphy. There needs to be detailed notes regarding how/where/when he was awarded each of these, so they have biographical relevance otherwise it's just a non-relevant picture gallery of awards.

Audie Murphy honors and awards to include Other Honors, and still needs work— Maile (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As done as it can be, all things considered. I've added extra sourcing where I can find it. But the fact remains the the Audie Murphy memorial site and its Audie Murphy Research Foundation is the best sourcing. They have all the military records on PDF, and not a whole lot of that information is available else where. — Maile (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Movie career
ALL sub-sections

Very thin on references, a few scattered citations, but not strong enough.

I'll see what I can dig up on this to make it better. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if this is OK. The article is getting too long and is difficult to edit because of that. I moved the entire movie career section to a child article Audie Murphy/Films and television work. It's written as though it were a separate article on its own if you care to move it. But making it a child article seemed to be a safe place to put it for the time being. I know the subject matter still needs work. When re-working it for the move, I found some repetition of information and one paragraph that belonged under his family life, and have taken care of those items. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the use of child articles is non-standard procedure, as the / removes the content from main space into a sub-article. It should either be in the main article itself or titled something like Audie Murphy filmography, as is common practice. Would recommend it be moved to such a title asap, before someone uninvolved in the article upgrade does it and potentially messes it up. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Maile (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now the section will need a WP:SUMMARY style paragraph on Murphy being an actor, rather than just a link to the new article.. I don't think FA would allow just a link, even though they are common on Wiki I don't think it's recommended practice; there should always be a little bit of background on the main page, covering the main points. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it taken care of. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Autobiography To Hell and Back

Given that this was originally a book, and only made a film six years later, is seems strange only to focus on its success under "movie career". Perhaps splitting the section, with more discussion about the book earlier in the article, then address the movie version under this section.

I've done the split. And at the bottom of the page I added a printing history of the book. If this should have been done otherwise, please feel free to change. — Maile (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Filmography
TV credits

Should be converted to a wikitable consisting of headings: Movie, Year, Role, Notes rather than a list. See: WP:FILMOGRAPHY. At FA quality, people want to know more about his acting career than a few titles.

Filmography (TV and list of movies coverted to wikitables) — Maile (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Music career

Moved to its own section below Movie career — Maile (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unmade films

Seems to be back-to-front, unmade films should follow his acting career, then move onto music.

Moved — Maile (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Personal life

Possibly needs renaming to Later life, given that it covers his post-war period, rather than personal life as a whole.

Renamed to Later life — Maile (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Post-war emotional problems

I feel that this comes too late in the article. First we get his childhood, then his military career, then his movie career, then his post-war trauma. I think there needs to be something between the two, discussing this his trauma, his move to acting, perhaps his book autobiography, and other similar biographical information, and then come to his acting career.

Moved this up to "Military career"

Done - Audie Murphy clubs

Mainly one reference used throughout. More would be better.

Moved this up to below "Military honors and rank" - will work on referencing and try to find more clubs

I've updated the references - the old ones were dead. Maybe it brief. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Other honors

Lot of copy-editing needed to tidy this up, hyphens to endashes particularly.
Lacks references, many of these honors need citing, to prevent this looking like a WP:TRIVIA section.

Inserted endashes, but don't particularly like the look. Working on sourcing and etc. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Marcus, thank you for this. Some of this I can probably take care of - maybe not all. As you've probably noticed, there have been many editors over the years, and it was in even worse shape before I started trying to upgrade it a couple of days ago. I want to do what I can. I believe Audie Murphy as a subject is worthy of FA, but the article needs work. How long can we leave this notice here before it is closed? I'd like to go through your list one by one and see what I can improve on. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from what I can gather, as long as a peer review does not become inactive for two weeks or is not older than a month with 2 days inactivity, it will remain open for further comment. Don't feel bound to have to deal with "all" suggestions in reviews, though bear in mind that what you don't do may be asked in more formal assessments for grading. I don't do class assessments, especially not FA, so whoever does that when you get there might consult this peer review and note anything you missed. There is a lot needs doing, I think the article should be at least 2 or 3 times bigger, in terms of prose and biographical detail, more about Murphy that is notable, factual, informative. The current article feels light-weight, and poorly attended for a man with the tag of "most decorated soldier". Is a real shame... unfortunately, I don't know all that much about him, apart from having seen To Hell and Back, but I grew fond of him from watching his Westerns, and thought him a sincere actor. Despite his humble nature, I have heard one of his post-war radio interviews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PstvNQVP3Zk) and would have thought that a man so well-know and respected, a LIFE cover hero and film star, would have done more interviews and had more publicity photos taken. Would be nice to see more quotes, images, citations that include these, and any other primary sources available. Would like to know more about his thoughts on the war, on his acting, his fav. roles, war anecdotes he told, things like that.. more intimate info. about the man himself than just general "he did this, he did that" background info. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of feel the same way you do about Audie Murphy. Thanks for the link to the interview-interesting. I agree with everything you've said. And I think a Wikipedia article on him should be top of the line. We'll see how much I am able to contribute towards that. I see there is a petition out there to get Audie the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and I'm hoping to find a centralized link to that rather than the scatter-shot blog links. I'm going to the library to check out "To Hell and Back", which is only referenced directly once, and that's in the lead. It would be good to get a perspective from the horse's mouth, so to speak. If I bring this to a larger article of the size you envision, the mere size would necessitate breaking it off into sub pages for things like filmography and awards etc. I'd like to find more on his personal PTSD - I remember reading a bio of him years ago that said he'd have nightmares in his sleep about the German children whose fathers he killed. I've done much on WP regarding non-military Texas history, geography and personalities. But I think this article should be one that can be respected by the military veteran readers. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have added more about his acting career, on behalf of WikiProject Westerns (which I started, last August), but most of my books only mention him in passing. This is mostly as a result of the films he was in being B-movies, and therefore not particularly notable – not really his fault – even though he did star with the wonderful James Stewart in Night Passage, it still gets very little coverage when put amongst all the bigger Westerns with Wayne, Eastwood, et al. If, however, WP:BIOGRAPHY or WP:MILHIST are able to identify enough material regarding his personal life and military career, I think that would get it at least to GA level. I think there would need to significantly more regarding his acting though, given that it covers more than 20 years of his later life, to attain FA where "it neglects no major facts or details" is part of the criteria, whilst GA only requires "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", specifically footnoting the lesser requirement to be as detailed as FA. I personally don't feel FA should be the ultimate goal of all articles, and would consider a GA-grading and a successful A-class review (at MILHIST standards, that is) a very respectable achievement, possibly even necessary stepping stones before pushing for FA, especially if there is a lack of obvious sources, as those A-class reviews can be useful as MILHIST members may contribute extra content, bringing it not far short of FA quality. Whichever way you prefer to do it though, I support its success. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left talk page messages at WP: United States and WP: Military History requesting editorial input from those who would be knowledgeable in military history. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Be interesting to see if those medal tables are developed or disappear given the current divide in opinion and lack of consensus over their usage. But there will need to be some detailed information regarding his awards to account for his "most decorated" title, as that is basically when his notability originated, and probably what FA reviewers will want to see also, to pass it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a lot of copy-editing, tweaks and such, hopefully that should tidy a few bits up. A lot of citation overkill present, with the same refs being used in the middle and end of sentences, which is totally unnecessary.. once per sentence should suffice in such cases, and not the same ref after every sentence, as was also the case in some areas, so I've reduced them too, making it a little neater. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions by AustralianRupert

G'day, good work so far. I had a quick look and made a few minor tweaks. Please check you are happy with those. Overall, I'd say this article has considerable potential for a higher rating, but it will need a bit more work. I have the following suggestions:

Done, and thanks for the idea - you might be able to reduce some of the whitespace below the lead by using a table of contents limiter such as {{TOC limit}};
once you are happy with the content, I'd suggest asking someone to copy edit the article before taking it to GA or A-class as I think the prose could be a bit tighter in places;
Done a few more citations are probably needed. I marked a few places with a "citation needed" tag where I felt they were needed with this edit: [1]
Done - this is an awkward sentence that probably should be rewritten: "The next day, January 26 (the temperature was 14 °F (−10 °C) with 24 inches (61 cm) of snow on the ground), his..."
Done - date format inconsistency. For instance compare: "5 October 2010" with "September 29, 2010" and "2012-03-14".
Done - what is the difference between the References and Sources section?
Done in the References section, the web citations should have publisher, author and accessdate information added if known;
in the Sources section, ISBNs, ISSNs or OCLC numbers should be added (these can be found at www.worldcat.org);
Done - the See also section probably doesn't need so many only loosely related links;
the sources/licences for the images will be checked during a GA or A class review. I suggest making sure that they are good to go before then. I had a look at a couple, and found that there is no date or actual source (i.e. what book was it scanned from, or what website did it come from?) for this File:Audie Murphy.png, additionally I think that the author is incorrect. The author is the person who took the photograph, which in this case (please correct me if I am wrong) would not be MarcusBritish, who was the uploader. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated photo/sig images. The derivativeFX uploaded didn't work properly, useless script, so I had to do it all manually and clearly didn't get everything. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AustralianRupert, thank you for this, and for the edits you made to the article. I'll go through the list and hopefully be able to take care of it all. The more I read and re-read the article, the more I see what you and MarcusBritish are seeing in the way of work to be done. And the overall flow of the article could be better. Right now, it looks like what it has been - a piece-meal work by editors who over the years added a part here and a part there. I'll do what I can.— Maile (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied over from the article's talk page

Per your request on the WPUS talk page. Feel free to put this wherever is most useful for you.

Done It might be better to create a separate article (similar to Service summary of Douglas MacArthur) with the awards (military and civilian and maybe even the long list of movies) and then summarize it in paragraph format in the article.
Since he was a Medal of Honor recipient you might want to glance at Kenneth Walker and see how that article is written.
Done - Some of the references need expanding such as 4, 17 and 41

I'm working on all the references. Some were dead links, some references are not necessarily representative of the text they reference. So, I'm going through the article slowly and checking as I go. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this gets closer to FA I think that some of the citations will be called into question. For examples, 23 and 50 (IMBD), 63 (Flickr)
Done - I recommend replacing the Medal of Honor citation reference with
- "Medal of Honor recipients". World War II (M - S). United States Army Center of Military History. June 27, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2013.
Done - Move the Medal citation into the Medal of Honor action and valor awards section with the description of the action
Done - Drop the Other decorated combat soldiers, World War II section, its really irrelevent to the article
Done - Change the Portal links to be like the ones on Kenneth Walker
Done - Remove the Audie Murphy legacy link, it redirects back to the article
Done - I don't think we need all the refs in the infobox, the info in the infobox should be in the article and cited.
Move the Audie Murphy clubs section under Other honors

Good luck with getting the article promoted. If you ask User:Hawkeye7, he may be willing to help out. He has gotten several of the other Medal of Honor recipients to FA status. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]