Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ulysses S. Grant

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant edit

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk)

Ulysses S. Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. After it failed at FA, I believe I fixed all of the issues raised there. The closing delegate suggested an A-Class review, and I agree. I think the military portions of Grant's biography, especially, could be benefited by the knowledge of the reviewers at this project. Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, great work in bringing this one up to scratch. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I am having trouble loading the article fully on my machine so I can review in too much depth, but I will try to offer some comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • the first paragraph of the Memorials and Presidential library section appears to be unreferenced, for A-class I think we would want at least one citation at the end of the paragraph;
  • are there citations/references that could be added for the information in Notes C and D? I notice that you have citations for all other notes;
    • Done.
  • "89 of the nation's 364 railroads went bankrupt", according to WP:NUMNOTES we shouldn't start sentences with numerals;
    • I wasn't aware of the rule. I rewrote the sentence to fix it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a reference for this: "In the election of 1876, the remaining three Republican governments in the South fell to Redeemers, and the ensuing Compromise of 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction."?
    • Done.
  • according to the MOS year ranges such as "1869–1877" should be presented as "1869–77". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't know that one either. I prefer the other way, but no one is above the MoS, I suppose. Fixed.
      • G'day, yes it seems a bit strange, apparently though there are a couple of exceptions to the rule also. For instance, date of birth and death parenteticals, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the thorough review! If there's anything else you think is lacking, please let me know! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, I had another quick look and made a couple of minor adjustments. I'm still having trouble loading the page - I think my old cluncker of a computer is on its way out. One thing I wonder about is the size of the lead: I got pinged by another user who must have seen the ACR announcement I posted on the Milhist or US Wikiproject pages and they suggested that it might be too long. What are your thoughts about that? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the lede is about right, but that may be because I know it used to be much longer. It's been a constant battle to keep out new tangential additions to the article. If you see something irrelevant or unnecessary, by all means strike it out. I'll give it another look today and see what can be trimmed. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I trimmed it a bit yesterday. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. This looks a lot better than when it was at FAC. I got down to Civilian life; so far so good. I'm not supporting, but I think the prose will be good enough to put it up at FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank, your copyedits are always welcome and appreciated. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "Stanton and Grant quickly surmised that the terms were much too lenient": Why did they have to guess? Did they not know Sherman's terms?
    • No! Sherman came up with the terms on his own. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 325 (National Park Service) is now a strange redirect. I looked at it because it because this is hard to read: "From 1890 to 1940, the Department of Interior and the National Park Service called part of what is now Kings Canyon National Park, General Grant National Park, named for the General Grant sequoia.". It would probably work better in passive voice.
    • I'm a passive voice hater, but you're right, it works better here. I'll change it, and look into that ref. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Fantastic writing, especially compared to earlier trips to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review and for your copyedits. Much appreciated! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be great to get this on the Main Page on one of the 150-year anniversaries coming up in March or April, if the nominators are up for it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree! After this review, I'd like to give it a good looking-over before nominating it for FA. With luck, we could be finished in time for the anniversary of Appomattox. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt Starting ...

Lede
  • I'm a bit wondering at the leading the Radical Republicans bit. The Republicans were already starting to be in retreat on Reconstruction, and Grant's policies continued that trend.
  • Do you mean just to remove the word "radical"? If so, done. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South fell apart and conservative Democrats regained control of each Southern state." This sounds like a cause and effect. I'd make the argument that the Democrats bore some responsibility. Certainly in South Carolina, the Democrats basically won on terror and fraud. And why is this mentioned two separate places in one paragraph? And can't the two Indian war references in that paragraph be consolidated?
  • Changed the redeemer sentence to "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South fell apart as conservative white Democrats regained control of Southern states through terror and disenfranchisement of black Southerners." And I consolidated that whole last sentence, which was just repetitive.
  • "Alabama Claims" Alabama should be italicized.
  • "Their consensus remains below average." I know what you are trying to say here, but some rephrasing is needed.
  • Yes, I wasn't happy with that, either. Should be better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Military career
  • "divided his army" I would say "divided his forces" to avoid a repetition of army later in sentence.
  • "Grant chose to remain in the U.S. military after his mandatory service had expired in 1847.". This feels awkward, and I think it's the "after" in combination with the past perfect. What about "Grant's mandatory service had expired during the war; he chose to remain in the Army."
  • Changed to "Grant's mandatory service had expired during the war, but he chose to remain in the Army." --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That same year," maybe "Later that year",
  • "repeal the resignation" probably better, "refuse the resignation". I think I commented on this on my earlier run through the article.
  • Done. Sorry, I thought I'd fixed all of the problems from the failed FA.--Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Civilian life
  • "By August 1863, " I think this sentence should be in the Civil War section, it's where people would look for this information
Civil War
  • " inexperienced volunteers" I would cut "inexperienced", I'm not sure it adds anything. Besides, they weren't inexperienced for long.
Shiloh
  • "had grown" Why "had"? Have we gone back in time? When are we speaking of here, anyway?
  • Changed to "now numbered"
  • "the Confederate army of roughly equal strength " probably should be "a Confederate army ..." I note you use "Confederate Army" with caps later in the paragraph.
  • "Pittsburg Landing near Shiloh . [57] " spacing problem here. I'd fix it but am doing this offline.
  • "having lacked reinforcements " lack of reinforcements
"stopped fighting" this reads oddly, like they went on strike or something. Is there a more military phrasing that can be made?
  • Changed to "halted".
  • "to date, " this is unclear in meaning. You probably mean "to that point". More died at Antietam, as I recall, but that was later.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not consistent re-election vs. reelection
Vicksburg
  • I'd mention what state it is in at some point. Better yet, a map.
  • I added the state. I'm not sure there's room for a map without cutting a picture. I'll think about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did support" perhaps, "showed his support for"
  • I don't like the way this gives the setting for Vicksburg, then goes back and discusses Gen. Order 11. I would move the info on the order and other 1862 material into the previous section. Go from the setting of Vicksburg to the Vicksburg campaign.
  • "Grant then made a series water movements and diggings attempting to bypass Vicksburg guns" missing "of" before "water" and probably an 's after "Vicksburg". Also, what "water movements and diggings" are is not clear to me.
  • I changed that whole awkward sentence to "Grant then attempted a series of maneuvers through the water-logged terrain to bypass Vicksburg's guns; these proved ineffective."
Chattanooga
  • Two consecutive sentences begin "On November 2x,"
  • Thanks for noticing. I hate that lazy form of prose that runs rampant across the encyclopedia. Changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the city's bluffs" Which city? Was Petersburg a city in 1864?
  • Yes, this was confusing. Changed to "in the James River". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln's assassination
  • "army intelligence sources were able to narrow the existing threats in Washington " Huh?
I cut the two sentences there -- too much information in an already over-large article. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commanding general
  • "At the war's end, Grant remained commander of the army, with duties that included enforcement of Congressional Reconstruction of the former Confederate states" Congressional Reconstruction could not have started before Congress convened in December 1865 and didn't get started in earnest until the following year. Before that, it was Presidential Reconstruction.
  • I don't know how the word "Congressional" got in there Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson argued for a moderate approach to Reconstruction," Hm. Perhaps rather than the conclusion, put in the specifics here as you have them in the sentence beginning "Johnson advocated". I think the way you have it might be disagreed with, with the key word being "moderate"
  • Yes. I reworked he section to state the facts of what Johnson wanted, instead of a lazy characterization. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson was about to attempt to unilaterally seat Southern Congressmen" I don't see how he could do this, and more than that, why what you relate regarding weapons would prevent or otherwise him from doing it.
  • Yes, that misunderstands the source material (here. I corrected it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " lest he be rendered politically irrelevant" Short of being found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, I don't see how Grant becomes politically irrelevant here. He's still General of the Army and a huge hero and the favorite in the next election.
  • "This public humiliation" humiliation seems a bit strong.
1868 campaign
  • "Grant at the age of forty-six was the youngest nineteenth century presidential candidate to take office." Unless I'm missing someone, he was the youngest president to that point, period.
  • "Johnson declined to ride in Grant's carriage or attend the inauguration at the Capitol." The Johnson article says Grant would not ride with Johnson. If I recall correctly, my Seward sources say the same thing. Also that Grant refused to appoint a liaison to the outgoing administration, as was customary.
  • There was snubbing on both sides, but it looks like most of it was on Grant. Changed it, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency
  • "Secretary of Navy" "of the Navy". Similarly, "of the Treasury". Used in subsequent sections as well. Also "of Interior", later.
  • What's the 1789 statute all about?
  • Explained and reworded, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fifteenth Amendment" is not linked on first use.
Indian peace
  • Your capitalization of "army" seems inconsistent (check lede for examples, but I just noticed it in this section)
  • Fixed for this section. I'll keep an eye out in for it as I go. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grant's Peace Policy" why the caps? (used twice)
  • Not quite sure. I don't think it's well-known enough to be considered a proper name. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it surprising the article lacks a mention of the transcontinental railroad, completed under Grant, and that certainly affected his Indian policy, among other policies.
Just flipping through some of the sources now, I see that the railroads opposed Indian citizenship, but I see little mention of Indians and the transcontinental. If I come across more, I'll add it where appropriate. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign policy
  • I don't recall Seward trying to buy any more of the Dominican Republic than Samana Bay, and don't recall Haiti
  • Two concepts got conflated there. Seward recommended the Danish Virgin Islands, Johnson (and the DR goverment) wanted all of Hispaniola. Fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln" and Johnson
  • "it would decrease the number of autonomous nations run by Africans in the western hemisphere" to zero, unless I'm wrong. If I'm right, Sumner's objection, to eliminating the only nation outside Africa run by Africans, could be stated more clearly.
  • Yes, that makes sense.
  • Is there a reason for a second link to Hamilton Fish?
  • No, it's close enough to the first that we don't need it linked again. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sumner opposed the third-party negotiated Johnson-Clarendon Convention settlement, that was rejected by the Senate," You might want to mention this was under Johnson's presidency and that the Johnson of the settlement's name is a different Johnson.
  • I removed the "Johnson-Clarendon" name, and hopefully clarified it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that the stated reason for the Alabama claims makes it clear to the reader why the US considered Britain liable. Though Seward most stridently did object to the declaration of belligerency.
Better now (?) --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gold standard
  • The description of Gould and Fisk's maneuvers seems overly detailed.
  • The tale of Grant trying to get the nation back on the gold standard is presented very approvingly. I doubt a Keynesian would agree. Just saying.
  • I'm not sure I agree, either, but it was the economic consensus at the time, I think.
  • "Since his first election Grant sided with both capital and civil rights interests that alienated some party leaders." This could be written more clearly.
  • "enforce its recommendations" implement its recommendations, perhaps.
  • Done. --16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Many of such men bolted" ahem
  • "Many of that faction split from the party in 1872..." Better? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know that. Glad to hear it! I'll take a look if I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of the cartoon used to illustrate the 1872 campaign is probably incomprehensible to the reader, who probably can't tell which Greeley is without a scorecard. I would find a more illustrative Nast cartoon. There are plenty on the web and at Commons.
  • "gold dollar as the monetary standard" I would insert "sole" before "monetary". The dollar had always been defined in terms of gold, the change was it was no longer defined in terms of silver.
  • "Critics who wanted more money in circulation to raise prices" well ... I think the point was easier credit, though they certainly, taking the debtor's standpoint, didn't mind inflation.
  • "Critics who wanted more money in circulation to facilitate easier credit..." might be better? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "failing to fully sell bonds" this reads a bit foggily.
  • "After the Panic, " since it really wasn't over yet, I would omit this phrase. The end of the sentence dates it.
  • I would make it clear what specie is in the text.
  • "the number of greenbacks " amount, not number.
  • "Grant's first endorsement" perhaps, "Grant's endorsement in advance"
  • ""Interior Department" is not consistently capitalized.
  • "increased qualified candidates" increased the number of qualified candidates, perhaps.
  • "to schools that have any religious affiliation" reads oddly, (the "any"), perhaps "to schools with religious affiliation"
  • The caption on the BEP portrait of Grant should not end in a period as it is not a complete sentence.
More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with your change, you are still italicizing and capitalizing Alabama claims three different ways.
  • Should be all capitalized and italicized now. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That case, which was unpopular with business interests, held that the federal debt incurred before 1862 be paid in gold, not greenbacks" I don't understand this. Business preferred to be paid in greenbacks?
I'm not sure what that means either. Changed to "In that ruing, which was unpopular with business interests, the court held that the federal government did not have the power to make greenbacks legal tender for payment of debts contracted in gold dollars." --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conking. Conking ... Cushing. Cushing" back to back names are disfavored
Election of 1876
  • You have three consecutive sentences that start "Grant".
World tour
  • "Travelling to London, the Grants dined with Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle, and Grant gave several speeches in the city" The "Windsor Castle" is causing a problem with "city" as of course Windsor Castle is not in London.
  • " Siam (where Grant met King Chulalongkorn,) Singapore, and Vietnam" so you're using the old name for Thailand but the current name for Vietnam?
  • Changed it to "Cochinchina (present-day Vietnam)". --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third term
  • " Electoral College-214 to 155" hyphen trouble
Business ventures
  • The machinations of Mr. Ward are given in too much detail.
  • I trimmed the detail a bit, but I think it's important to know why the firm went broke -- that it was criminality, not bad luck or a bad economy. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Memoirs
  • "After private services, the military in New York placed Grant's body on a special funeral train and traveled via West Point to New York City," So the military went via West Point?
  • I cut "via West Point". I actually hate using the word "via" in most situations. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd shorten Grand Army of the Republic to GAR instead of saying "Grand Army" for short.
  • Fixed. -Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historical reputation
  • I'd split that first paragraph somewhere
  • Dictionary of American Biography probably should be italicized
  • "Grant's reputation, for the most part, remained popular" are reputations popular?
  • Why is Grant & Ward italicized?
  • I would more clearly separate his military reputation from his political one if possible. You seem to jump around a bit, and there are some questions of chronological order as well. Saying that Grant was savaged by the Dunning School in the early 20th century near the end, when you've mentioned more recent and more favorable comments, seems a bit out of order.
  • I rearranged it and tightened the language, but the military and political reputations are still combined. It's kind of hard to separate it without becoming repetitive. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it. It's much improved from last time I saw it. I especially like the historical section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support

I'd just like to focus on the Historical reputation section. It starts off fine, but becomes muddled, with comments appearing out of chronological order. Here is the order of events:

  1. After the war, Grant was seen as a national hero
  2. As the Lost Cause myth took hold in the 1890s and early 1900s, Grant became a drunken bumbler and butcher as a general, and a corrupt and incompetent president
  3. After World War II, his military reputation was salvaged, and he became seen as a grandfather of the kind of total war that was associated with America's victory in World War II (Most bios of the period omitted his time as president largely or entirely)
  4. In the 1970s, the World War II military legacy became attainted as a result of the war in Vietnam, and he became an incompetent butcher again
  5. A reassessment of the Reconstruction in the 1980s saw a revival of interest in Grant as president, and a corresponding reevaluation
  6. Leading to where we are today, which is somewhat mixed

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tweaked the order and wording to be more in line with this. The 1970s reassessment sounds familiar to me, but I'm coming up short on sources. Is there anything you can recommend? I'll keep looking in the meantime. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do:
Rafuse, Ethan Sepp (July 2007). "Still a Mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981–2006". The Journal of Military History. 71 (3): 849–874. doi:10.1353/jmh.2007.0230.
Email me if you don't have JSTOR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks for finding that. I'll read it and incorporate it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Some images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing, only a few wikimirrors etc. [1] (no action req'd)
    • In the lead: "In July 1863, after a series of coordinated battles, Grant defeated Confederate armies ...", is there a missing word here before "Confederate armies"?
      • Maybe. I added a "the", but I'm not sure it's necessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan..." - I'm no expert on US history but this seems to be an overstatement, doesn't this organisation still exist (albeit in a different form)? I wonder if a less equivocal term might be used than "destroyed", perhaps "reduced the power of" or "prosecuted" etc.
      • The KKK was pretty well smashed, although other white supremacist groups took its place. More to the point, after Reconstruction ended, there was less "need" for terror, in the mind of white Democrats, since they by then controlled the apparatus of the state. I'll change to "prosecuted," unless I come up with something better. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some inconsistency in name of Grant's daughter - in one place referred to as Ellen and another as Nellie (if her name was Nellie but she was known as Ellen this should be made clear)
      • It's the reverse: christened "Ellen," called "Nellie." Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...meeting with Lincoln to devise strategies of total war against the Confederacy...", should this be "strategies for total war"? Perhaps also wikilink "total war".
      • I changed it to "a strategy of total war" and linked it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typo here I think: "Grant was initially skeptical, but at the urging of the Admiral Porter...", specifically "the Admiral Porter".
    • "... believing that England should directly pay $2 billion in gold...", probably should be Britain nor England.
    • "...and the defeat of Colonel Custer...", should just be Custer, removing rank following formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME.
    • "In 1884, Grant's personal reputation came under suspicion after the collapse of Grant & Ward, but rebounded after the immense popularity of his 1885 Memoirs." Is there a reference to support this?
      • No, strangely. I've reworked the sentence, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I ended up cutting that line when I rewrote some of the historical reputation section. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few of the references are missing isbns / oclcs / issns. These can be found through WorldCat.org so you might consider adding them for consistency.
      • I didn't even know ISSNs were a thing! I've added them, and the OCLCs that were missing. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gday - I've had another look now. Happy that you have addressed all my comments and can see quite a lot of work has occurred making other improvements as well. My only remaining concern is the amount of uncited material that there is in the article. Indeed there are quite a few paragraphs with sentences at the end that do not have a citation, which makes it unclear what the source is (at least to me). With the exception of the information about Grant appearing on the 50 dollar bill and possibly the stamps, the majority do not appear to be WP:BLUE so they will need citations. If these can be added I'd be most happy to support. If you need me to point out the places I'm talking about pls let me know and I'll add citation needed tags. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added these tags now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think all of the tags are replaced by proper citations now. As to the rest, I'm not sure citations are needed. WP:CITE says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." I can't see any of these being challenged. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea that there's a statue in a park seems non-controversial. If you disagree, I'll see what I can do about getting some sort of citations for them. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes I agree, happy with the citations now. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "At Monterrey, he demonstrated his equestrian ability, carrying a dispatch through sniper-lined streets while mounted in one stirrup." I couldn't really envisage in my mind how he would look "while mounted in one stirrup"; I'm not a horseman myself, and I couldn't quite see why he wouldn't have just put his other foot in his other stirrup. Is there any way of making it clearer why he did this?
    • Yeah, that didn't make much sense. I looked it up in Smith and rewrote it, with a new citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He grew unhappy separated from his family, and rumors circulated that he was drinking to excess." - have historians formed a judgement about his likely drinking during this period?
    • There's a note to that effect, which I moved up from later in the section. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was responsible for issuing supplies and horses to the Corps of Engineers headed by Captain George B. McClellan who became upset when Grant was rumored to have been on a drunken spree.[30] The commanding officer at Fort Humboldt, brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, received reports that Grant became intoxicated off-duty while seated at the pay officer's table. " This was a little unclear as to whether the "drunken spree" is the same as the off-duty incident, or if these are different issues/incidents.
    • The McClellan sentence was added after the rest of the paragraph was written. It's just repetitive, so I cut it altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the numbers as words are compliant with the MOS, I think; "forty-six", "sixteen", "thirty-seven" etc. should normally be 46, 16, 37 etc.
  • A lot of the names of other people in the article are given complete with middle names - e.g. "several non-politicians to his cabinet, including Adolph E. Borie and Alexander Turney Stewart". My personal advice would to normally express these in the simplest form possible, e.g. "Adolph Borie and Alexander Stewart", as it would make some of the paragraphs easier to read. In most cases, they're not going to be confused with anyone else I think.
    • I thought a bit about that as I wrote. In the end, I opted to use the most common form of the person's name, usually based on the sources and how their articles are titled. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an ACR requirement, but if it was going to FAC, I'd be recommending making the paragraphs shorter; some of them are very long, and particularly hard to read on a screen as a result.
    • Good point. I split a few, but feel free to do more if you think it's better. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a body of literature quite critical of Grant's Indian policy, and giving a very different slant on his approach - some Google books links with examples of this are https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Uyh8kdcuA1kC&pg=PA146&dq=president+grant+indian+policy+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TvOnVMyQEojOaJKFgMAP&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=president%20grant%20indian%20policy%20genocide&f=false; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GWkCCAN17HcC&pg=PA213&dq=president+grant+indian+policy+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fvOnVMXKLILVar6igIgI&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=president%20grant%20indian%20policy%20genocide&f=false; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sDdKrwiDZq8C&pg=PA576&dq=president+grant+indian+policy+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0fOnVJzuHJXzaprOgKAI&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=president%20grant%20indian%20policy%20genocide&f=false. I'm not an expert on Grant or the Indian policies of the period, but should this be reflected somewhere, even if as a minority opinion?
    • I'll take a look there, and re-examine the main sources for more nuance. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the charges of drunkeness, which seem to have dogged his career and have been brought up by later historians, be mentioned in the lead? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's one of the main things people know about Grant, unfortunately, but maybe having it in the lede is a bit much. I'll cut it. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was in there, and shouldn't be. You're saying maybe it should be in the lede? I'm reluctant to add it, both because it's a pretty minor (if well-known) part of Grant's life, and because the lede is already longer than I'd like. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt:, @Anotherclown:, @Hawkeye7:, and @Hchc2009:: I think I've addressed all of your comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it another read through.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing some hands on copyediting, but there are still a few issues I see:
  • "army" and "academy" are inconsistently capitalized.
  • Should be fixed. Army is now only capitalized as part of a proper name, like "Army of the Potomac"
  • "The failures confirmed Jesse Grant's belief that his son had no head for business, frustrating both father and son." Technically you are saying that the confirmation of JG's belief frustrated both father and son. In a way, that's true, but I think it should be rephrased to make the failures directly responsible for the frustration.
  • I deleted the whole clause. It's kind of repetitive.
  • Something could be said about the strategic significance of the capture of Henry and Donelson, which controlled the river traffic in central Tennessee.
  • Good point. Done.
  • " nine miles south at Pittsburg Landing near Shiloh" nine miles south of what? Also you probably should use a convert template there.
  • I think that's a relic of editing and overediting. I took out "nine miles south" --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could Grant remain at home in Galena during the '68 campaign? Wasn't he still in the army(Army)?
  • I added some detail to clarify it. According to McFeely, Grant remained in Washington until July, then went to Galena until at least election day. There was a telegraph connection, but it seems to have been used for campaign business. He didn't return to his office in the War Department until after the election. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " or attend the inauguration at the Capitol" I'm not sure this is 100% correct. According to my Seward refs, there were negotiations and the proposal (which Johnson declined) was that they ride in carriages side by side, with Johnson (after all, still president) on the right, in the position of honor. And Seward still hoped to persuade Johnson to go even on the morning of March 4.
  • I changed it to "Grant's presidency began with a break from tradition, as Johnson did not attend Grant's inauguration at the Capitol or ride with him as he departed the White House for the last time.{{sfn|McFeely 1981|p=287}}" There's a lot of note-sending and protocol issues that I left out for brevity. Briefly, as I understand it, both men wanted to look like they wanted to go together, but neither actually did.
  • "federal laws would be enforced in the South when state courts and prosecutors were reluctant to do so. " is this the job of state courts and prosecutors, to enforce federal laws?
  • Clearly not! I cut everything after "in the South," since it was nonsense.
  • If that Grant BEP portrait is the one on the $50 bill, that's worth a mention in the caption. You might want to consult with Godot13 (whom I'm pinging all over the place today).
  • It's not. I have never seen this portrait used on U.S. currency. I suspect it was engraved by G.F.C. Smillie, BEP Chief Engraver (1894 – 1922). The $50 portrait was engraved by John Eissler and the $5 silver certificate was engraved by Lorenzo Hatch.--Godot13 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The saga of replacing Chase as Chief Justice could probably be shortened.
  • Done.
  • "and South Carolina to keep the peace" I suppose, though it really had more to do with the Hampton-Chamberlain disputed election than Hayes-Tilden. There's an unreferenced sentence at the end of the section.
  • You're right, it did. Don't know when that bit got added, but I took it out and reworked the whole paragraph. I should keep a closer eye on things!
  • "Returning to the continent," I'm thinking that in this context, "continent" should be capitalized. After all, whether they like it or not, Britain's in Europe (at least until UKIP gets in!)
  • Done. Maybe we'll revise it in May after the election!
  • "I'm not sure that your pipe of securities to security interest is correct. Surely what they were buying was stocks and bonds? Security interests are ... well, kinda like a lien.
  • I should probably have taken secured transactions in law school. Changed to Security (finance).
That's it, again. Well done. I saw your nomination of Weaver, I will get to it but it may take me several days as I have several other reviews promised and I'm trying to finish up Tillman.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitchfork Ben! Looking forward to it. Thanks for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see everyone who might have had further questions was pinged on the 13th. Reading quickly, I don't see evidence of questions that haven't been addressed. I'll report this at the coord's talk page for closing, but I'll keep an eye here in case last-minute questions pop up. Anotherclown, are you happy with the referencing? - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ulysses_S._Grant&oldid=643743237"