Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Michael P. Murphy

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

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Murphy edit

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because since passing its GA review it has some data added to it and I believe it meets the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- No problems reported with dab links. Five external links are reported as suspicious, including three of which are reported dead, please check and advise on the status of the links, and if necessary locate acceptable substitutes for the dead links or remove the information. Additionally, a number of images are missing alt text, please add this to the article's pictures forthwith.
  - Dead Links deleted - None of the dead links were used as references in the article so I removed them. --Kumioko (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alt text done I had some trouble with the alt text for the ribbons but I think I got it. Some were rather difficult to describe which brings another point. I think we should establish some standard logic for these ribbons, et least the common ones so we don't end up with 50 ways to describe a purple heart. --Kumioko (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was the first person to be awarded the medal for actions in Afghanistan; and the first member of the U.S. Navy to receive the award since the Vietnam War." This is false information: both Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart received Medals of Honor during the failed Operation Gothic Serpent. Gary and Randy - both Delta Force snipers - volunteered to be inserted to guard a black hawk shot down by Somali forces during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.
  - Comment - Gary and Randy were both in theh Army and the battle of Mogadishu is not considered to be a part of the afghanistan war so this is true. --Kumioko (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - D'oh! Should do my reviewing before 3:30 AM to help avoid this, couldn't be help last night. Good Call. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he double major at Penn state? The article doesn't say, but I would like to know.
  - None of the references state why, but this is fairly common in the US. I will try and find out but when the book comes out aith his Biography in the next few months I will be adding more data to the article from that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the bold letter in the combat in afganistan section? Unless you have a really good reason for the bolding, I would suggest removing the bold or using italics instead.
  - Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lose the photo gallery, if commons has a page for the pictures, then they do not need to be in the article in a gallery section. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- In the See also section, the Find a Grave should be removed. It is actually an External link and see also would normally be for internal links, however, as you have direct referenced it (Citation # 10 in Notes), it probably should not be listed in either See also or External links;
  - Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- as mentioned above, I suggest not bolding OEF and GWOT, suggest using "OEF" and "GWOT", or putting them in brackets;
  - Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- some of the sources listed in the References section don't seem to have been directly cited, should they be included in this section as such?
  - Done I added them to a Further reading section --Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the citation style seems a little inconsistent, for instance # 3 has the page number last but # 4 has page number first;
  - DoneI found a few that were different and I fixed them --Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Operation Red Wing section (two instances here), I think "sixteen" should be "16" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words;
  - Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Operation Red Wing section you have used an informal "didn't", I suggest not using a contraction and replacing it with "did not";
  - Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Operation Red Wing seciton you have "SEAL's" (as in "SEAL's were killed in the fighting", I don't think this is grammatically correct. I think it should be "SEALs" without the apostrophe);
  - Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the References section seems a bit spaced out, I'd suggest removing the spaces in between each entry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done --Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: all my comments have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a couple of caveats:
- I made some minor tweaks to the "Combat in Afghanistan" section. The abbreviations "OEF" and "GWOT" don't really need to be given because they aren't used in the rest of the article.
  - Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The youtube external link may need to be double-checked for copyright status - it's often problematic on that site and I don't think we'd normally link to it.
  - Done I removed it. It didn't add a lot of value anyway and there was nothing to say decisively if ot was or was not a copywritten item. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of external links caused me to question what they are bringing to the article. If there is additional content in them that could be used, it should be written into the article and the links given as sources. If not (ie they are different write-ups of the same story) they probably fail WP:ELNO no. 1 (they do not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.") They might also give the impression that the article is approaching WP:MEMORIAL territory.
  - I removed a couple including the youtube one. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the above points are A-Class blockers under our criteria, but they might be worth taking a look at. Thank you for you excellent work, EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.