Talk:Michael P. Murphy/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Not Yet
    1. The lead should summarize all of the article. Briefly mention some of the things in the "honors and awards" section in the lead.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The "Operation Red Wing" and "Death and Burial" sections are somewhat confusing, switching back and forth from the battle to the aftermath. The sections should be reordered so "Red Wing" contains all details of the actual fight first, and all the details of the other casualties and their medals after that.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "Murphy's remains were found by a group of Soldiers" - what kind of soldiers? what nationality?
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The silver star should be mentioned in the prose; when and how did he win it? The silver star is a pretty high award by itself; details about it can't be left out. If it turns out that the star was upgraded to the MOH, then it should be removed from the list of awards.
The star is seperate from the MOH, as far as I can tell he did get them for the same thing BUT they didn't upgrade the silver star to the MOH they gave him both. Since the MOH takes a couple years or more to get approved and its so rarely granted that the unit probably submitted and approved him for a silver star thinking it unlikely the MOH would be approved. I am just guessing though since I cannot seem to find the citation for the Silver Star yet. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The details of the monument at the post office are unnecessarily detailed. Cut out the parts that don't pertain to Murphy directly.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Not Yet
    1. The first graph in the "Honors and awards" section should be referenced.
For this one are you talking about the paragraph or the ribbon display...or both? --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both, preferably. —Ed!(talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got this but you might want to take a look and see if I captured what you needed me to do. I don't like the table with all the refs in it by the way so if I can just put it once that would be preferred. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "...was submitted as bill H.R. 4101 to the 109th Congress." - Needs a ref.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "...was signed be President George W. Bush and became Public Law No: 109-256." - Needs a ref.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The inscriptions on the post office need to be cited.
Done, removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The detail about the pending biography also needs a ref.
Done. Took it out for now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I took the bio book out for now because the ref I had doesn't work anymore. Once its released or when it gets listed I will put it back. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass No problems there.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Not Yet
    1. The article has a clear slant towards the Americans. Even an article such as this one must be fair and balenced. Remove any references to "enemy insurgents" and such. These terms need to be replaced with more neutral and specific terms such as Taliban militia or tribal fighters or something like that.
In my opinion calling them enemy insurgents isn't biased because thats what they are, just like we are there enemy. I don't even know if the refs tell whether they where taliban or tribal but I will find out and try and reword it a little. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded a couple things so I think this should be more neutral. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly concerned with the term "Enemy." While it is a contentious subject, the American forces and the insurgents are simply two beligerents in a conflict, in the neutral eyes of history. No one is the "enemy." —Ed!(talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I reworded it enough to meet this but let me know if I need to tweak it some more. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Not Yet
    1. The gallery contains too many images, which I would recommend either removing or placing in the prose.
Done I removed the gallery and incorporate the remaining image. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    On Hold while issues are addressed. —Ed!(talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I feel that you have addressed the issues I brought up to my satisfaction. Since Abraham is also satisfied, I think that the article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope youse don't mind me butting in, but I, too, have a few comments on the article. See also sections should only be used as a last resort and should only contain links that are highly relevant to the subject, but are also not previously linked to in the prose. As the SEALs article is already linked to, it should be removed, same with the other Medal of Honor recipients; they do not really add anything to the article and are not highly relevant to the context of Murphy. Also, there are way too many subheadings in the area of Murphy's honours. The "Other honours", "Michael P. Murphy Memorial Park", "Michael P. Murphy United States Post Office", "U.S.S. Michael Murphy DDG-112" and "Biography" sections should be combined into a single "Legacy" section. Additionally, Note 1 is solely WP:OR and should be referenced or removed; same with all of the "Military awards". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, breaking this comment into its many parts let me respond to each:
  1. I will remove some but I believe that the see also section is relevant and I believe that linking to the only other recipients in the entire war is appropriate.
Removed some. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link to the MoH recipients list is sufficient here, as it not only links to all other Iraq recipients, but all in general. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I will try and trim down the subheadings and tidy this section up a bit but I don't really see a difference between leaving them as honors and awards other than personal preference. I can change it but why. --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have to name it "Legacy" if you wish, I just think it is the most appropiate. At any rate, the sections I mentioned above should still be re-worked into the one, single section. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I also do not agree that note 1 is original research, the article in WP clearly shows the criteria for it and the biography shows that Murphy met the criteria. Not sure what you mean about the other military awards, do I need to give a reference for each award or just one since they are all identified in the same reference? --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The note, I believe, is OR as you yourself have evaluated Murphy's career and service against the criteria of the medal, and judged he was eligible for it. You need a reliable, published source to state this, otherwise it actually is OR. As it currently stands, the military awards are completely unreferenced and could also be perceived as OR; they all need to be referenced. Thanks for your prompt replies, and I hope I'm not too much of a pain in the butt. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I am working on the ref but I concede that I may need to remove it for now. I will save that for last and if I still cannot find a ref I will remove it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I finished all the comments, I also added in a good bit of info about the battle and cleaned up some of the wording within some sections to flow a little smoother. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most have been addressed now. Thank you for getting to work and addressing my concerns. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael's father again. Unsure of why Michael's GWOT Service Medal was removed from the site. The picture referenced in MIchael's legacy web site of his uniform presented to us by the Navy at the Lake Ronkonkoma dedication shows the GWOT service medal having been awarded...also Michael's official Navy records which I now have in my possession show the award along with the Silver Star for his combat service in Afghanistan in 2005 as opposed to an upgrade. The MOH was separate and referenced the battle itself. Do you need a copy of the citations because I have them? They will all appear in Michael's biography by Gary Williams. It is tentatively titled "When Character met Circumstance; The Life of Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy" which comes from a speech by Admiral Maguire, then head of Naval Special Warfare, at the Navy Memorial wherein he referenced Michael's character coming to the forefront when confronted with the circumstances he faced on that tragic June day. I might note that not all of Michael's awards show up on his official Navy bio.207.29.190.95 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy[reply]

The ribbons display is incorrect. In the Navy, we only display horizontal rows of 3 each (US Navy Uniform Regs para 5312). Also, I couldn't find it in the regulations but I believe that the MOH ribbon is always centered by itself in its own row above everything else. The GWOT SM should be there as well as the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. The previously questioned GWOT Expeditionery Medal probably should also be there if LT Murphy made two deployments to the Middle East. One deployment would earn the GWOT EM, the other the Afgh Campaign Medal, which is already present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.6.11 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_P._Murphy/GA1&oldid=1137007903"