Talk:Arthur S. Carpender/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

No dab or external link issues reported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

As Early Life is just a short para, suggest moving it into the Early Career section (leaving the latter heading as is).
- Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
Rather than finishing off with the short-short Death section, suggest changing its heading to Later Life or Postwar Years and move to it the last couple of lines from WWII, modifying slightly, e.g.
Carpender’s last military assignment was as Coordinator of Public Relations in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy from 28 May 1946. He retired on 1 November 1946,^[1] with tombstone promotion to the rank of admiral.^[2]
- Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  - Well, sort of... I didn't suggest losing the last section, just renaming it and expanding it a bit by adding the post-war "last assignment" onwards -- perhaps "Retirement" is the best heading for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Restored last section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/detail

Aside from my usual copyedit, just one point: in "naval Examining Board", is "naval" part of the Examining Board’s name and should therefore be capitalised?
- Should be "Naval" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Who publishes Navy Biographies Section?
- Naval Historical Center Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should be consistent in whether you show available wikilinks to publishers. You do it with Naval Historical Center but not with Naval Institute Press or Allen & Unwin (just to name a couple).
- Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that OCLC is only needed if there’s no ISBN, however that may not be a rule. There was a time when some FAC reviewers insisted on both, but now everyone seems happy with just one or the other.
- During the FAC for the Admiralty Islands campaign, an editor wanted OCLCs to be provided so editors could find the referenced books in local libraries. Since then I have added OCLCs to all the articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not too fussed about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting materials

I suppose there are precedents in US military bios but I’d certainly prefer to lose the rank insignia –- they’re not standard/required in bios as a whole (I’d be happy to lose the flags too but they’re ubiquitous).
- mumble mumble
  - Yeah yeah... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about putting "(Australia)" after the CBE. I realise the Australian government must’ve recommended him but it was surely still up to the British government to actually appoint him, given it’s an imperial honour.
- No, it wasn't. After the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, requests went direct from the GG to Buckingham Palace, where they were processed by the Royal household staff, bypassing the Secretary of State for Colonies.
  - You learn something every day... Out of interest, are you talking about all honours and awards? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, there is a small class of awards that remain within the personal gift of the monarch: the Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, Royal Victorian Order and the Order of Merit. This came up recently when John Howard received the Order of Merit in the New Year's List. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, I was aware of the honours that are within the personal gift of the monarch, that's why I was surprised the CBE didn't need British govt approval, since it wasn't among those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for not pursuing this sooner, I'm still unsure of "(Australia)" in the infobox -- I figured this was for the origin of the award, not who recommended it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In some cases that would lead to awards by countries that no longer exist. The Australian government recommended and issued the awards, in many cases over the objections of the UK government. The Order of the British Empire was one of these; no permission was required or sought for its award. The party line is: honours and awards given on the recommendation of Australian governments under the imperial system are Australian awards. [1]Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, tks for that -- I guess that seals it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it’s a requirement, but there’s no alt text on the main image.
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there's no other images of him available but any chance of a relevant picture or two in WWII, say of ships or fleets associated with him? Even one such image would break up that wall of text...
- I found this but was unsure about its copyright status. Anyhow, added some pictures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Good work as usual, mate, happy to pass when these few points are acknowledged/actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Been offline a lot lately. Hope everything is okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Passing as GA -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Navy3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Ancell&Miller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Navy3-1] Cite error: The named reference Navy3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Ancell&Miller-2] Cite error: The named reference Ancell&Miller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]