Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert A. Murphree/archive1

Albert A. Murphree
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-
 * Lead: this says who Murphree was and mentions the offices he held, but needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD. In particular the notable fact that he became a college president at 27 while still studying for his master's degree should be in the first paragraph of the lead (provided this information can be cited to a reliable source)..
 * Early life
 * Suggest "Confederate" linked to Confederate States Army
 * ✅ Good idea.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of putting "college" in quotes? This suggests that it wasn't a college in the generallly accepted sense of the term, so what was the nature of this institution?
 * ✅ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MOS would prefer"twenty-seven" to be "27"
 * ✅ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Murphree married Jennie Henderson, the daughter of one of the seminary's trustees." Hmmm, are you by any chance hinting at nepotism here? The placing of this information immediately after reporting his youthful appointment tends to suggest that you are; can you clarify?
 * Citation needed for the final sentence.
 * Professor and university president
 * General point: this section has too many paragraphs, some of which are short single sentences. For better flow, try to merge the prose into perhaps three or four substantial paragraphs
 * The first paragraph properly belongs to the lead, rather than here.
 * ✅I agree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: the second paragraph would read better if the two main blocks of information in it were reversed. It could then be merged with the following paragraph, thus (with a little copyediting):-
 * Murphree continued to serve as the president of Florida State College, which became the all-female Florida Female College after the 1905 enactment of the Buckman Act. From 1905 to 1909, Murphree emphasized greater academic expectations for his female students, while upgrading and expanding the school's curriculum to meet modern university standards.[11] In 1909, Murphree convinced the legislature to change the name of the college to the Florida State College for Women. While he was still president of Florida State College, several prominent political backers advanced Murphree's name to be the first president of the University of the State of Florida, the newly consolidated men's university and land-grant college created by the Buckman Act in 1905. Instead, the Florida Board of Control selected Andrew Sledd, then the president of the University of Florida in Lake City, to be the first president of the new men's university. When Sledd was not re-appointed for the 1909–1910 school year because of a conflict over what some political figures believed were inflexible admissions standards that were impeding the growth of the university, Murphree's name was once again advanced as a replacement.[12] This time, the Board of Control voted unanimously to approve his appointment.[13] Murphree assumed his new duties during the summer of 1909, and worked diligently with his predecessor to ensure a smooth transition that capitalized on previous successes.[14] In a surprise to some of his previous political supporters, Murphree endorsed Sledd's admissions standards, and thereafter actually tightened the requirements for entry again in 1912.[15]


 * In the above paragraph it would be better to replace "While he was still president of Florida State College..." with an actual year.
 * ✅ Inserted 1905.  Sentence rewritten to clarify.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Murphree was an organizer and a builder." If this is your own characterisation of Murphee it should be withdrawn (POV). If it can be sourced, put it in quotes.
 * ✅ *Deleted unsourced "editorial comment."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for appropriate citation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "reported", not "purported"
 * ✅ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Presidential nomination: does this deserve to be a separate section. So far as I see, Murphree was not nominated and had no interest in being nominated. Also, no one—not even Bryan—can "announce his intention to be elected..."; perhaps "announced his intention to seek election", or even just "sought election".
 * ✅ Sentence rewritten to eliminate wordy construction.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * Two mentions of "unexpected" death
 * ✅ Deleted 2nd instance.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At the time of his unexpected death in December 1927, Murphree was widely hailed on the editorial pages of newspapers..." Does this mean after his death? Perhaps "praised" would be a better word than "hailed".
 * ✅ "After" and "praised" substituted.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The auditorium image is disproportionate in size to the other images, and tends to crowd the text. 350px would be adequate.
 * ✅ Photo reduced in size.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * General point. A feature of this article is the number of long or very long footnotes. For example, [10] is at least 150 words long. I think you should review these notes, to see whether some of this text ought to be in the article, rather than relying on the chance that readers might click on to these footnotes. At the very least, they should be separated from the reference footnotes and listed separately, using the footnotes template.
 * I have reviewed the content of the explanatory footnotes carefully. The reason for including the footnote information was that it is interesting and related to the subject, but possibly disrupting to the flow of the main text.  After review, I think it's placement in the footnotes is appropriate.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All in all, an interesting read that with some further work ought to make it at GA. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful review, Brian. I have made the easy changes you recommended, and I am now contemplating the best way to make the structural changes you have suggested.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)