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]
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
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?
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.
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).
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.
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
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...
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]
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
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?
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.
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).
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.
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
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...