Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Audie Murphy honors and awards

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

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Murphy honors and awards[edit]

This is the second of three articles on Audie Murphy. The third is Audie Murphy filmography, which I plan to nominate for GA. I don't see the A-class review here as a venue for the filmography (if I'm wrong, let me know). After the main article passes FA review, I would like to nominate the trio of articles for FT or GT. Towards that end, I have made the referencing style the same on all three articles and have correlated the information from one to the other. Content of the honors and awards consists of what was originally divided off the main article Feb 2013, and other items added by various editors. I recently cleaned up the style, prose and citations, with a detailed explanation on the talk page. I have been somewhat concerned about using information from the Audie L. Murphy Memorial website because of how Wikipedia views sites that are somewhat user-generated. The fact is, that some of those documents that are scanned cannot easily be found elsewhere, so I have tried to label the sourcing from there precisely for what it is.— Maile (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note on a recent GF edit that changed "Non U.S." and "Non United States" section headings to "foreign". I've changed it back, because "foreign" is subjective to the country of the reader, and it is also inconsistent unless the United States sections were reworded "domestic". — Maile (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, good work. I made a few changes (please check you are happy with those and adjust as you see fit). I also have a few nitpicks (not a full review):

Done check for consistency of date format. For example you mainly seem to use "Month, Day, Year", but there also appears to be "Day Month Year", e.g. "October 5, 1944" v "7 December 1941" etc.

I believe I caught all of them, up in the military awards.— Maile (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done currently the article seems to use both {{citation}} and {{cite web}}. This leads to differences (albeit very slight) in presentation, so I'd suggest that where appropriate you adjust (probably to cite web as it is then consistent with the cite book template as well);
Done in the Bibliography all works seem not to include locations, except for the Simpson work. Preferably all should have them, I believe, and you could probably find them here, but if you can't find them all, the advice I have seen at FAC is "all or none" (I personally can see arguments for and against this approach, but as you have stated a desire to possibly take this further, I want to try to set you up for success at the next level);
Done for FAC, you will need to make sure that all images are correctly licenced, including the award ribbon images. Unfortunately, my internet plan precludes me from checking all of these, but please make sure you are happy you have checked them all

These are all licensed on Commons, either from the copyright holder or (the majority of them) as Public Domain — Maile (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done missing open quotes here: ...a postage stamp of Murphy in uniform as part of a 9-stamp sheet in tribute to World War II on the Silver Screen";
Done(in Footnote E): "Murat Shriners of Indianapolis, Indiana, credits their information sources..." --> or should this be "The Murat Shriners of Indianapolis, Indiana, credit their information sources..."? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick away. The more we catch, the less problems later. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've reviewed the changes made recently and made a couple of minor tweaks. I'm happy that you have covered off on all issues identified, so I've added my support. Good luck with taking it further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert, thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

Not being American I have no idea what a a CSM is, as in CSM George L. Horvath or a LTG as in LTG Crosbie E. Saint. Are they military ranks is so can they be written in full and linked.

Done CSM Command Sergeant Major and LTG Lieutenant General - I linked them for you. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And unless I'm missing something there appears to be several references missing for the dates of promotion Staff Sergeant and most of the officer ranks.

Done ~~Those missing referernces are vexing to me, also. At the moment, I've asked another editor if they can assist with coming up with the sources. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)~~ Cites filled in. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also seem to a slight overcite for the MoH and the DSC do they really need three cites each? Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MoH cites are the two required eye witness accounts of the action, and the Army's online page that details the verification of the awarding of it. The DSC is one eye witness account, and the other two verify the awarding of it. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney, thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.