Talk:Robert Clark (businessman)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Title

Per naming conventions shouldn't the title of this article be Robert Clark (naval officer) rather than including the honorific "Sir"?--ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that but couldn't decide what to put in parentheses. To use (naval officer) would disregard almost all of his later work in business. I suppose Robert Clark (businessman) might be better. If you want to move the article I have no objections - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that disambiguated titles should be as general as possible, I have moved it to Robert Clark (businessman).--ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Clark (businessman)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies that you have had to wait long for a review. This comfortably meets the GA criteria; prose is well written, references are in order as it is broad in coverage. Just minor quibbles:

  • "After completing his training Clark was dispatched..." place comma between 'training' and 'Clark'
  • Ref needed directly after the sentence "After the camp was liberated Clark returned to London, sending ahead a telegram to Marjorie, stating: "Arriving London from Germany. Meet me."'
  • "At Slaughter and May Clark worked exclusively" comma between 'May' and 'Clark'
  • "Clark died on 3 January 2013 and was survived by his wife, two sons and one daughter", should that be is survived by his wife?
  • Ref 1, 2 and 3 need locations (all of which London). For Ref 2, it should be referred to as The Daily Telegraph.

No dead or dab links. On hold for a week. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten that I had nominated this! Thanks for reviewing. I agree with all your suggestions and have updated the article accordingly. I used was in the survived section so as not to date the article, however on reflection I don't think the extra info was important so have removed that part of the sentence anyway. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, happy to pass. :) Lemonade51 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]