Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Audie Murphy/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:29, 24 May 2014 [1].

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most decorated American combat soldiers of World War II. He also had a successful career as a film actor. This article has passed GA review, and also A-Class review at WP Military history. It has been further polished in the ensuing months to prepare it for FAC. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the basis of a swift glance this looks an interesting, comprehensive and well written article. Sadly, Murphy's profile in the UK, at least to my generation, is virtually non-existent, and I am at a loss to understand why so interesting a man is so little known here. I hope to give the article more solid review attention, but meanwhile here is a handful of minor points/observations:

  • I am always uneasy to see a paragraph that ends without a citation (see Southern and southeastern France). In this case the solution is simple – flip the sentence: "Along with the other individual soldiers who took part in the action he received the Presidential Unit Citation[51]."
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As myself the son of an army man, I'm astonished that Murphy, even in wartime, could achieve the rank of Staff Sergeant at the age of 18-and-a-bit. These accelerated promotions seem extraordinary; was Murphy's case in any way typical?
I don't know what was typical for the US Army in WWII. In some cases it might have been a result of performance. But during WWII, the Army probably took a look around at who was available to shoulder a given responsibility, and slapped a promotion on them. That happened just hours preceding his Medal of Honor action at Holtzwihr (Colmar Pocket). The reason of that has been edited out as FAC prep necessitated paring down the article. What happened there, is that the other officers of his company had been killed. He was the only officer still standing, so they made him company commander. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting in here. It would have been extraordinary in the Old Army, but not during World War II. When the squad size was increased from 8 to 12 in 1941, the squad leader was made a sergeant, with a corporal as second in command. The platoon sergeants then became staff sergeants. Multiplied across nearly 300 infantry regiments, this created a requirement for 25,000 sergeants. In 1943, a further increase occurred, with the platoon sergeants becoming technical sergeants, the squad leaders becoming staff sergeants and the deputy squad leaders becoming sergeants. In December 1941 one in five enlisted men was an NCO; by June 1945 nearly half were. Coupled with casualties in the front line infantry platoons that reached 90% at times, one's chance of making staff sergeant was excellent so long as you stayed alive — which Murphy would tell you was the real trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between the Standby Reserve and the US Army Reserve?
The Texas National Guard is a component of the U.S. Army Reserve forces. During Audie's period of service with the Guard, it went through a lot of restructuring, and change of terminology. "Standby Reserve" is merely a status within the Army/Guard. His service records show him transferring to "inactive" status in 1951, and in 1952 the Army began calling that Ready Reserve, which I believe had both "active" and "inactive" components. When he first entered the Guard, he was actively involved in training troops. Then he went to inactive due to his movie commitments, but he could have been called up at any time. When he transferred to Standby Reserve in 1966, it meant the Army/Guard took into consideration his value to the civilian community, and while he still could have been called up it was less likely to happen. Somewhat confusing, but about what terminology they used to define his status in any given time. His 1969 retirement from the U.S. Army reserve was just that - a complete retirement from military service.— Maile (talk) 13:1, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the British Army this was called the Reserve of Officers. They had completed their service with the colours in the regulars or the TA, and had no training obligations, but remained available for call up in the event of mobilisation. For this they were paid a small amount each month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His relationship with director Budd Boetticher began..." To the casual reader this wording sounds equivocal; I would qualify (e.g. "working relationship") or reword
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote "i" needs futher citation
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not done a sources check, but Ref 23 looks as though it should be pp. not p.
Done. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can offer for the moment, though as indicated I hope to return. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of everything you mentioned above. Thanks for your input.— Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • To Hell and Back caption needs editing for formatting
Done. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg, File:Croix_de_guerre_1939-1945_with_palm_(France)_-_ribbon_bar.png, File:BEL_Croix_de_Guerre_1944_ribbon.svg, File:Texas_Legislative_Medal_of_Honor_Ribbon.svg - what is the copyright status of the original design? Compare the licensing used for the other ribbons
Removed all ribbons from infobox due to licensing concerns above. It didn't look right if some had ribbons and some didn't, so I removed them all.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no copyright concerns. Medal ribbon design do not reach he threshold of originality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case I've restored all the ribbons to the infobox. Thanks for the information.— Maile (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Memorial_Audie_Murphy_-_Holtzwihr.jpg: the source site given has a copyright notice on it - what evidence is there to support the given licensing tag?
Removed this entirely. This was inserted by a red link editor several weeks ago. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Moh_army_mil.jpg as a 3D work, the licensing needs to reflect the copyright status of both the medal itself and the photo thereof.
I swapped this out with a different image from Commons. Check the one I inserted. It was the only Army one I could find that actually identifies its origin.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've answered your concerns.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose for now. Sorry, I hate to oppose, but this needs quite a lot of work. I'm also astonished that this chap isn't better known on this side of the Atlantic and I'd love to see this become an FA. However:

  • The prose is choppy, to the point of being nigh unreadable in places. Far too many short sentences, and they all seem to start with "Murphy" or "he".
Edits have been done.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the grammar is sloppy, to the point that in at least one place (His first met director Budd Boetticher began when) it quite literally doesn't make sense.
See below on this specific instance. — Maile (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a habit of using nouns and dates as adjectives, which makes the article difficult to read; I've tweaked a few of these using several different methods for variety, so you might want to look through my edits.
Edits have been done by another editor.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)p[reply]
  • The chronology is confusing
I completely disagree with the chronology as "confusing". It's pretty much like it was after the A-class review from WP Military History. And they were very picky that it needed to have a chron flow. It does, and flows in chronological order. Dates are mentioned where relevant. The only place the chron differs is in the "Film career" section, which seems to be what you don't care for. Again, I refer you to the talk page for part of that answer. The film career section generally follows a chron order. But in his case, it was often more important and more interesting to the reader to group films with people he worked with repeatedly. Directors, producers and writers were more important to what helped make his film career than a dull "...he made such-and-such film....then the next year he made so-and-so film...then the next year..." Personally, I think it's more confusing to flip back and forth looking for, as an example, what films he made with Jesse Hibbs. As for Wanda Hendrix, she didn't figure into his film career until the Alan Ladd movie. That was the place to explain who she was to the reader. It has a good flow, IMO. Just not so cut-and-dried that it reads like a list.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • quite often there's no date given for a particular event and the reader is left scratching their head
You might want to give examples. Dates are where they need to be. If you think something has been left out, please cite them here.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You introduce significant facts out of order, eg Wanda Hendrix, whom he had been dating since (in a paragraph about 1948), Wanda Hendrix, who by that time had become his wife
See my answer above in the chronology.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tends towards praising Murphy in parts. His achievements are doubtless heroic, but let the reader come to that conclusion themselves. For example, watch words like "just" and "only".
Your examples puzzle me. What are you seeing? I don't see that either you or any other editor has removed "just" or "only".
  • A Search comes up with "just" in one place: "a large granite marker was erected just off the Appalachian Trail"
  • A Search comes up with "only" here: "stopped only after he ran out of ammunition"; "The only film Murphy made in 1952"; and in reference to his poems "Only two others survived"
I don't see how "just" or "only" is used in the article to praise Murphy.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article suffers from over-compression in some parts and under-compression in others; for example, a great deal is made of campaign medals that were awarded to hundreds of thousands of men, whereas details on the actions which earnt him gallantry awards are relatively sparse.
Well, there used to be more. But what happened to that can be found on the article's talk page.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you posted this there have been some recent edits from an FA-level editor. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor issue, but I think you could consolidate some of the sections and reduce the number of headings.
I see you have already reduced the headings. Your edit that changed the heading "Military service" to "World War II service" is an improvement. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more specific commentary:

  • Murphy dropped out of school in fifth grade and got a job picking cotton for $1 a day to help support the family and became skilled with a rifle, hunting small game to help feed them. Bit of a run-on sentence with the to "and"s
  • How did his mother die?
It's never been said, as far as anything I can find.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Cause of death has now been inserted into the article.— Maile (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he and two other soldiers were ambushed by German machine-gun fire, one of them fatally Can one be "fatally ambushed"?
Well, one of them died in the ambush, so for him it was fatal. The others lived, so it wasn't a fatal ambush for them. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded by recent editing.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murphy was promoted to sergeant on December 13 Did he go directly from private to sergeant? None of the junior NCO ranks are mentioned above.
Actually, in the paragraph before that it says he was promoted to Corporal on July 15. And the paragraph before that one says he made Private First Class on May 7. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to include the various merit badges, such as the Marksman/Expert/Combat Infantryman badges? These aren't decorations for bravery etc, and most American infantrymen would have them. Should we focus on the more important awards?
Dicey choice to make, but I understand what you are saying. After all, the honors and awards are now a Featured List on their own. The article's history is full of edit wars over Murphy not getting recognition for every little thing. He has a hard-core base of supporters who aren't willing to give an inch. And Wikipedia is also open to their editing. One of the most heated topics among those is "most decorated" v. "one of the most decorated". Right now, things have stabilized. I think the real question is whether or not we want to eliminate mention of all but the valor awards, thereby guaranteeing the article will dissolve into an edit war.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murphy advanced alone [...] Along with the other individual soldiers who took part Which is it?
Perhaps you were confused because two different dates of action appear in that paragraph. And,yes, the dates are there in chronological order. The "advanced alone" part happened after they came ashore during the August 15 landing. The last two sentences of that paragraph very clearly puts a different date on what you are referring to Murphy was part of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment participation in the August 27–28 offensive at Montélimar that secured the area from the Germans. Along with the other soldiers who took part in the action, he received the Presidential Unit Citation.— Maile (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "earning" the right word to use in the context of the Purple Heart? Presumably it's not intended to be a reward for getting injured (per se)
All instances of this have been changed. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He sustained a leg wound during his stand and only after he ran out of ammunition. Only after he ran out of ammunition ... what? It feels like there was something there, but it's been removed, leaving just the fragment.
The word "stopped" was missing, and I reinserted it. For the record, before all that glut of editing back in Jan/Feb, this is what that sentence originally said:
For an hour, Murphy stood on the tank destroyer returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, during which he sustained a leg wound. He stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Thank you for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of the decorations section? We've established that he was astonishingly well decorated; shouldn't we just mention the most important ones and refer readers to the daughter article for the full list? Not least since several of these were awarded to just about every American soldier who fought in WWII and so aren't really significant, unlike the MoH and the Silver and Bronze stars.
Well, I can't explain what I didn't create. That second was set up by a different editor during the "improvements" to get it to FAC. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my answer to your question of "Do we really need to include the various merit badges". I would also refer you to FA Douglas MacArthur as an example. Such a section seems in keeping with FA. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They never cast Murphy in a movie and a personal disagreement ended the association. I've put a {{when?}} tag on that
I took care of this as soon as I saw the tag.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you did. My apologies.
  • The partnership fell into disagreement That's a strange construction. Why not just "they fell out" or similar
I think we might be looking at this as British language usage v. American. Partnerships that "fall into disagreement" is OK as far as I'm concerned. And if you do a search on Wikipedia for articles that contain the phrase "fell into disagreement" you will see a lot of instances of its use. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This sentence in the article has been edited differently by another editor, and I'm OK with the editing on it.— Maile (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1950s ended with Murphy doing three westerns. That's a really horrible construction. There are lots of different ways you can say what you're trying to say, almost any of which are preferable.
Reworded with recent editing. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • His first met director Budd Boetticher began when Murphy requested to be his boxing partner at Terry Hunt's Athletic Club wtf?
This was a typo, and it's been corrected now. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at the end of the "Film career" section, because there's too much to list everything here; I've done quite a bit of copy-editing as I've gone through, but it needs attention from somebody familiar with the subject and the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comments here. And not any excuses, but an explanation of some hunks of what you see. If you read the talk page on the article, you should see part of it. Several seasoned editors agreed to help out, and then didn't except for a tweak here and there. A couple started to do more, and then abandoned it. with no explanation and no response when I repeatedly tried to initiate contact. The film section literally got copied and edited down from Film career of Audie Murphy, torn up and reworked. The military section used to be more but was split off by someone else, and I tried to work with what is left. It's been quite a history of false starts on editing help. Of course, on the other hand, it's come a million miles since a year ago. The chronology and dates used to have a great flow after the WP Military History A-class review. But then...there's that talk page stuff.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. But it's 2am here, so it won't be right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate what you have done. It's been bit disheartening to me that I've tried every avenue I can think of, both online at WP and in emails, to get editing help with his. While there has been some helpful editing, it's often been a case of getting help/advice of going one direction, and the next go-round of editing help is telling me to do a U-turn and go back the other direction. That, and it seems that the more experienced at WP tend to be touchy and disappear in the blink of the eye with no explanation. So, for what you have done here, and anything else you might do, thank you.— Maile (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In your edits you uncapped all mentions of "Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster" and "Oak Leaf Cluster". I have reverted those changes. Per pg. 18 of the United States Army Style Guide, these are specific awards that are supposed to be capitalized. Improperly uncapping awards has triggered edit wars in the article's history.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted your edit of changing "the Guard" to "the guard". Per the United States Government Printing Office Manual of Style, Chapter 4, "the Guard" is correct.— Maile (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, I think I might have confused you with a recent edit summary on this article. It was not intentional, and I didn't realize until I looked at the dab for GPO that it could have many meanings. In the United States, it is the official government acronym of the United States Government Printing Office, and I was referring to the above-mentioned manual.— Maile (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this piece has come a long way and it was through this article and its editors that I was able to dispel a long-standing myth about Audie Murphy regarding ownership in a firearms company.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've been working on this, and I'm down to Audie_Murphy#Decorations so far. I don't know what "24 3 January Division" means. Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I corrected this blooper after you posted the edit summary. It was an error caused by a script I ran on Apr 27 to convert all dates to DMY. Boy, that did look strange. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant General A.M. Patch, the officer who decorated Murphy with the CMH.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Western" (i.e. a film, as a noun) is more often capitalized, and my guess is that you'll get less pushback if you capitalize it, but I have no objection to lowercasing as long as it's consistent (and it is ... now). - Dank (push to talk)
  • "It is [Arlington] cemetery's second most-visited grave site, after that of President John F. Kennedy": That might be worthy of the lead section, up to you. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "One of those poems, "The Crosses Grow on Anzio", appears in To Hell and Back attributed to a soldier named Kerrigan.": This information appears in two sections. Probably not necessary in both.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, though I haven't looked specifically at your edits in response to HJ's points ... HJ, are you happy with their (and my) changes? These are my edits. I was a little fussy with my copyediting ... this guy deserves (and has) a great article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A thoroughly well-researched, well-written article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the awards do not appear to be sourced anywhere
Added refs to the badges, the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal. The others had references, but some had a single reference at the end of the paragraph. Just to make sure, I stuck a reference next to the name of each medal. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
Changed fix # of columns to colwidth. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: given title doesn't match that shown in the source
Changed. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether "Audie L. Murphy Memorial Website" is presented as author or publisher - should be the latter. Same with Texas Historical Commission, check for others
Publisher=Audie L. Murphy Memorial Website" for all now. — Maile (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Texas Historical Commission and Texas State Historical Association are two different entities, if that's what you were referring to. — Maile (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - compare for example FN7 (THC in author position) and FN 14 (THC in publisher position). These should probably both be publishers, and you should check that there are no other entities in both positions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I fixed that. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval dates
Believe I've caught all these. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN57, 62: page formatting
Done. — Maile (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN82, 110: formatting
Fixed, and they are now both FN82, as they are the same source. — Maile (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 99 and 100
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN80: italics
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
Believe I've caught all these. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Billboard include publisher when none of the other periodicals do? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life magazine and Boys Life had the publisher also. However, if you are also considering newspapers as periodicals, then they don't. Just to be on the safe side, I removed the publisher from Billboard, Life and Boys Life. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. — Maile (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edition numbers aren't part of the title and shouldn't be italicized
Done. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Degrees shouldn't be included in author names
Done. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare publishers for Nott and Yoggy.
Done. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I believe I've taken care of your list. If I missed anything or misunderstood what you were saying, please let me know. Thank you for your time, and thank you for making me a better editor. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I know HJ Mitchell hasn't been able to edit much of late but I'd like to give him a chance to look the article over again and see if his concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's much to be gained from my continued participation here. It's possible that the article has changed dramatically since I last looked, but I don't have the time (or, frankly, the inclination) to go through it, so make of my comments what you will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through them quickly, and it appears to me that HJ's comments have been addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Having scanned the article myself, and taking into account that HJ's review was fairly early in the proceedings and a fair bit of editing/reviewing has occurred since then, I think we can safely promote now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to personally thank everyone for their time and efforts on this. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.