Mulhall reminds me so much of El Reno '13. Pretty much everyone who saw it agreed that it was likely extremely violent, and the radar presentation (both NEXRAD and mobile) was super impressive, but the actual damage on the ground didn't always match up. Obviously a big part of that is just traversing sparse terrain, but the complex structure in both cases probably played a role as well. You might record insane velocities on radar, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're reaching the ground - or at least not in such a way as to cause the kind of damage you'd expect.
That being said, the Mulhall tornado obviously still produced some pretty high-end damage (the worst of which I described in the article), but I couldn't find many photos outside of Mulhall itself. From what I understand, it debarked trees in some places (down near Crescent and then again near where it killed Alan McClure northeast of Mulhall) and I got conflicting reports on whether or not it produced ground scouring. For the most part, the swath of clearly identifiable damage didn't exceed a mile to a mile and a half, but it may have been around two miles at times.
If I'm remembering right (I really should check my notes), Gene Moore said that he drove across part of the damage path afterward and there was significant tree damage spanning well over three miles, but that was down around the Crescent area and probably included both the F4 and the subsequent F3.
Anyway, Mulhall was no doubt an exceptional and historic event, but I personally think some of the narratives around it (like the popular assertion that it was "just as strong as Bridge Creek, if not stronger") are a bit much.