Talk:Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: –MuZemike 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for GA. I will note that due to the size of this article, this will take a while to complete, so be patient. I will note various issues with the article here as I go along. Also note that I'll be comparing this article to more watched and worked-on "Presidency of ..." articles like those with George W. Bush and Barack Obama.


 * MoS issues
 * Lead – Is it possible to make the lead into four (or possibly five) fuller paragraphs as opposed to six smaller ones? You can probably just combine a couple, and that would work, as the lead does a good job so far in summarizing the article as a whole.
 * I would start the lead with something like The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant started on March 4, 1869 and then go from there, just so that we have a mentioning of the article's title in there.
 * It might be better to combine a few subsections in the "First Term 1869-1873" section such as the sections regarding the Force Acts or those regarding the prosecutions of the Ku Klux Klan.
 * The same thing applies to other sections, also. There is no need for subsections containing only a couple of sentences of prose.


 * I'm noticing that you have shortened citations (which is fine; many of them need some cleanup, but I won't hold that against this GAN), but either a listing of the full citations are not there, or the full citations are listed in the "Further Reading" section. I have changed the section heading where the reference list is generated to "Notes". What you need to do is, directly below the "Notes" section, create a "References" section, and include the full citations of all print sources used in the article. If the full citations are in the "Further Reading" section, then simply move them into this "References" section.


 * Prose issues
 * I believe "Cabinet" (in reference to United States Cabinet) is capitalized; there are instances in the article where it is not capitalized where it should be.
 * I also believe "presidency" should be lowercase as in context it's a common noun; there are instances in the article where it is capitalized instead.
 * To be consistent with the name of the article Fifteenth Amendment "15th" should be "Fifteenth" (capitalized).
 * The Klan was essentially destroyed by 1872 for the next two years doesn't make much sense (they were "destroyed" for two years?). Please reword that sentence.
 * The long-term goal was the opening of Korea to the world the way Commodore Matthew Perry, in 1854, had opened Japan. - also doesn't make much sense. Can you reword this sentence, also?
 * discovering there was a question over whether Virginius had the right to bear the United States flag. is a sentence fragment. Please correct.
 * There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding capitalized/lowercase words such as "act", "federal", and "white" to name a few. Please use the proper case of each word. (Look up and see whether these words should be capitalized or lowercase depending on usage.)
 * In March 1876 the main charge against Robeson was giving lucrative contracts to a Alexander Cattell & Company, a grain supplier, in return for real estate, loans, and payment of debts. - Not written very well to begin the paragraph. Please rewrite and be a bit more informative.


 * Verifiability issues
 * In the "Presidency 1869–1877" three paragraphs are completely unsourced. Please add the appropriate citations in there.
 * Possibly the greatest achievement of the Grant Administration was the Treaty of Washington in 1871 that settled the Alabama Claims. - needs to be verified by a reliable source directly as this is a rather strong claim. If it's verified by the given source at the end of paragraph, then that's fine.
 * The second paragraph in the "Civil service reform" (with the quote at the end) is unreferenced. In addition, that quote, along with all other quotes in the article, must have an inline citation following it.
 * While he vetoed the bill on strong economic grounds, it may have created the needed economic confidence in the Southwest. ? another unsourced statement and tagged accordingly. Please find the source for this statement or alternatively remove it.
 * That second paragraph after the list in the "Scandal cabinet and appointees" section is completely unsourced. Please provide a reference for that.
 * The last two sentences in that first paragraph in the "Reforming cabinet members" section needs to have a source, as it's providing some substantial claim about Grant's other Cabinet members.
 * Most of the "Presidential legacy" section is completely unsourced.
 * The Chang/The Journal of American History reference I think is incorrect. The linked article is titled "Whose 'Barbarism'? Whose 'Treachery'? Race and Civilization in the Unknown United States–Korea War of 1871", whereas "Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between the British and United States Empires" is credited by Paul A. Kramer. You may want to fix that.
 * A few of the citations from the Nevins (Hamilton Fish: The Inner History of the Grant Administration) and Smith (Grant) books as well as a couple of others don't have the page numbers from where you got the information from. That should be there to guide readers to the correct page(s).

The part about Grant's treatment of the Native Americans seem a bit POVish; the same regards his "peace treaty". There are some sources out there (many academic journals) which heavily criticize Grant's treatment of them and should be included in the article. Here are some sources I'm talking about:
 * Neutrality issue


 * (the key there is the bill HR 921, which was pocket vetoed)

on hold pending the above improvements.
 * Conclusions

I will note that the article looks very well-referenced, and that the images look good so far. As I said above, I will note any relevant issues above. –MuZemike 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

More issues added above. As as far sweeping the prose is concerned, I am finished through the "First Term 1869-1873" section. –MuZemike 22:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now done through "Second Term 1873-1877". –MuZemike 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Review completed and placed on hold pending the above improvements. I still needs a little work, but I think it can make GA if everything above gets addressed. –MuZemike 18:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note the additional verifiability concern I noted above; there will likely be a couple more when I finish combing through all the sources. Also note that I'm helping you out with the full citations in my sandbox. –MuZemike 02:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That should round out the list of issues I noted above that need to be addressed. I've added an additional verifiability issue as well as an additional neutrality issue with regards to Grant's "peace policy", treatment of the Native Americans, and the buffalo extermination during his administration that is widely mentioned today by many scholars. –MuZemike 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason, the references for the third and fifth paragraphs in the "Presidency 1869–1877" section disappeared. Can you please put them back in? –MuZemike 20:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made to the article. MuZemike, could you give an update on the status of the article? {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}
 * Review update


 * Passed. I cannot think of anything else that can be addressed. Remember to try and stick with the Harvard-style short citations (i.e. "Author 19xx, pp. 1–2.") as listed in the article as that's shorter and easier for the Notes and in the edit box. Great work on what is a very long article. –MuZemike 02:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)