Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA4

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

Greetings, Coemgenus. Grant is a fascinating character, and I'm glad to learn more about him as I review this article. I am pleased to see that nearly every objection raised at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA3 is either resolved or is now moot. I believe the organization of this article is appropriate, and at first blush I do not see any missing aspects that should be covered, nor any areas where the article goes into unnecessary detail. The lead effectively summarizes the main points of the article, which is a challenging thing to do for an article of this length. I have noticed a few places where the prose could be improved, and have begun to copy-edit the article. If you disagree with any of my edits, please feel free to revert and discuss.


 * Can I assume you will eventually want to nominate this article for FA status? If so, here are some opportunities for improvement that are not necessary for GA status, but should probably be fixed eventually.
 * American Civil War and Ku Klux Klan are each linked twice in the lead, and Panic of 1873 is linked thrice. There are instances of overlinking throughout the article. The User:Ucucha/duplinks script can help you find these.
 * I got rid of the more egregious ones. I left a few duplicate links where they're widely separated in the text.  That tool is useful! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving some is fine. And yeah, the tool is great. The only thing is doesn't show is when the article links to a separate article, and then also links to a redirect of that separate article. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article uses the serial comma in some places (e.g. "generals William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and George Henry Thomas"), but omits it in others (e.g. "based on black voters, Northern newcomers ('Carpetbaggers') and native white supporters ('Scalawags')"). It's fine to either use or omit the serial comma, so long as it's consistent within the article. Which would you prefer?
 * I use it in parts I've written. I'll try to comform the rest to that style. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. I too will insert it when I see that it's missing. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:COMMA, commas are needed after parenthetics when they do not end a sentence. For instance, consider "Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio on April 27, 1822 to Jesse Root Grant...". "Ohio" is acting as a parenthetic, specifying which Point Pleasant you mean, and 1822 is also acting a parenthetic, describing which April 27 you mean. As such, commas are needed after both, which I fixed in this edit. This should be done throughout the article, to conform to the intricacies of our manual of style. – Quadell (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I only found one other example of this, and fixed it. I'll keep an eye out for any others. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found a few others, and fixed them. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: When the lead refers to "native white supporters ('Scalawags')", I know that you mean supporters of Republicans who are white and native to the south, but it sounds like you could mean native supporters of whites, or supporters of native whites. Would "other southern supporters of Republicans ('Scalawags')" work? If not, some other wording will be needed.
 * Added "Southern" Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Casual writing: "These failures, along with the separation from his family, made for quite an unhappy soldier, husband and son." This should be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone.
 * Quite right. I revised it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well stated. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Undue weight: As described in the last paragraph of "Military career, 1843–1854", Grant drank to excess, and was asked to resign, which he did. But the text devotes nine sentences to this, dancing around the did-he-or-didn't-he-drink issue as if it were one of the most important aspects of his career. Instead, the facts should be summarized fairly and a bit more briefly.
 * Yes, that level of detail is better suited to the sub-article. I trimmed it up a good amount.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It now feels fluid and appropriate. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Captions: I have fixed several minor problems with image captions, but the caption for File:Whiskeyring.jpg has some problems that I don't know how to fix. First, I don't see the words "Let know guilty man escape" in the cartoon. Direct quotes need a cite. And I'm not sure what the quote is doing logically or grammatically in the sentence at all. Is it needed? I would change the caption to "Grant authorized Bristow to shut down and prosecute the Whiskey Ring."
 * Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I removed the period—captions should only end in periods (full stops) when the caption is a complete sentence. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Abbreviations: Ranks such as "Maj. Gen" or "Brig. Gen." should not be abbreviated.
 * I think Cmguy and I have fixed all of these. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Spelling: Sometimes the text spells John C. Fremont with an acute e, "Frémont", and sometimes just as "Fremont". Either is fine, but the article should be consistent.
 * These are all fixed now (with the accent, which Fremont preferred.) --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: I don't understand what this means: "and 'promoted' Grant to the hollow position of second-in-command of all the armies of the west". The article doesn't understand why this position was hollow, or what that means. And why the quote marks around "promoted"? If it's a direct quote, it needs a citation, but I suspect they are scare quotes, which are inappropriate in an encyclopedia.
 * They were scare quotes. I removed them and gave a better explanation of the problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect! That's very clear now. – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: "During the second attempt to capture Vicksburg, Grant made a series of unsuccessful and criticized movements along bayou and canal water routes." Were they criticized at the time, or only later? Criticized by whom?
 * That's just bad writing that I should've deleted long ago. Fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Allegations: "an unknown assailant allegedly failed in an attempt to break into Grant's railroad car". To give a doubted claim like that, you'll have to say who alleged it, per WP:ALLEGED.
 * I deleted that clause. The sentence works fine without it, and I prefer brevity where possible in this long, long article. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that's the most appropriate way to undo a Gordian knot. – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: "For security purposes, a scapegoat engine preceded Grant's train on the return trip." What does this mean?
 * I deleted this, too. It's unnecessary detail. What was meant, I think, was that an engine preceded Grant's on the line in case someone had placed on the tracks what they would have called a torpedo or an "infernal device" (a land mine, basically). --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hatnote: You should probably have a section hatnote for Ulysses S. Grant as peacetime general, 1865–1869.
 * Yes. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Missing information: The caption to File:Virginius Incident 1873 Harper's Weekly.jpg states that "After the Virginius incident, Grant's Secretary of Navy George M. Robeson authorized the construction of five new naval battleships." This fact is not mentioned in the article body. It should be added and sourced, or else removed from the caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: The article says "Grant was given charge of the southern Illinois, District of Cairo". I don't know much about the way districts were worded back then, but that comma looks spurious. Should it be "of the southern Illinois district of Cairo"? Or perhaps "of the District of Cairo in southern Illinois"?
 * Cleaned this one up. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Links: The battles Grant was involved in should be linked. (Battle of Belmont, Battle of Fort Henry, Battle of Fort Donelson, etc.)
 * Got them all, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you got all of them. – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ALLEGED: Again, with "in an election in which the police commissioners had allegedly turned Conservative voters away from the polls".
 * Should read better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great. – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Tone: Self-references like "(see below)" are not appropriate.
 * Removed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: "Grant came into conflict with Colonel George Armstrong Custer after he testified in 1876 about corruption..." Who testified? Grant or Custer?
 * Custer. Fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: "With the exception of Grant's personal secretary, Orville E. Babcock, who indirectly controlled many cabinet departments and delayed investigations, the scandals were unrelated to each other." I'm not sure what this means. Is it saying tha Babcock was the only thread tying the multiple scandals together? If so, it should be reworded for clarity.
 * Reworded Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * McFeely (1974) page 133 stated that Babcock was possible person who linked the scandals together. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Recommendation: I think the section called "Grant & Ward" should instead be called "Business ventures" (or something similar), since only the second paragraph is actually about Grant & Ward.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Puffery: "Twain called the Memoirs a 'literary masterpiece', and others including Matthew Arnold and Edmund Wilson agreed; it may be the "single most important" and influential work of American non-fiction." I believe everything after the semicolon should be omitted. The "may be" part is unprovable speculation, and it's not clear who is doing the speculating. Calling it a literary masterpiece should really be enough.
 * OK, I cut that back. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The current "Mark Perry calls the memoirs" wording is also acceptable. – Quadell (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose: "After private services in Mount McGregor and lying in state in the New York State Capitol at Albany, Grant's body was placed on a funeral train and traveled via West Point to New York City, where a quarter of a million people viewed it in the two days prior to the funeral." I'm not sure what "lying in state" is, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't match well with "private services". (The body was lying in state, but the boy wasn't "private services"—see what I mean?) In my opinion, the section on his funeral is detailed enough; consider simplifying to "After private services, Grant's body was..."
 * Agreed and done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose/Trivia: The sentence about Ohio's vote for Statuary Hall inclusion uses the phrase "in a statewide vote" twice. But really, it isn't clear what was being voted on, and I'm not sure a second-place finish in an Ohio poll merits mention alongside being depicted on a $50 bill. Omit?
 * I agree. Omitted. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Balance: Similarly, it's an honor both for Grant and for MSU that the Grant library is in MSU. But does it deserve it's own 3-sentence paragraph, when the D.C. Grant Memorial and Grant's Tomb have to share a single sentence?
 * Yes, I agree. I trimmed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Cites: Grant's "My efforts in the future will be directed..." quote needs a specific cite. Cite 143 comes a sentence later, and lists two separate books. Which book does this quote come from?
 * It's from his second inaugural address, but I'm not sure which book we drew it from. is it from Brands? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now that the original source is clearly specified in text, I don't think it's still an issue. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus. Hamlin Garland (1898), Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character, pages 425-426


 * Clarity: "Although Grant was upset over Canby's death, he ordered restraint from seeking revenge or exterminating the tribe, as Sherman wished." Does this mean Sherman wished that Grant would order restraint? Or that Sherman wished that Grant would exterminate the tribe?
 * Sherman wanted to kill them all. I clarified it in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Alleged: "then, in an apparently agreed-upon arrangement, he resigned due to 'sickness' and was appointed Minister to France." Those look like scare quotes. Also, why was it apparent that an arrangement was agreed-upon?
 * Reworded for clarity. The arrangement was to give an ailing Washburne clout upon being appointed Minister to France by Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for the careful wording is that most historians think the "ailing" part was fake. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the most recent wording has alleviated the problem. – Quadell (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose: The "Third term attempt" section contains the following two problematic sentences: "Grant received 306 votes on the final ballot, his supporters staying committed to their man to the bitter end. Logan moved that the nomination be made unanimous, and it was, but those 306 Stalwarts were immortalized in Republican myth." First off, I don't think they stayed committed "to the bitter end" if the final nomination was unanimous. Second, "to the bitter end" is casual metaphor. Thirdly, I don't think this counts as "myth", and I don't think it's "immortalized" any more than any other encyclopedic fact, and I'm not convinced it's even important enough to mention. Would this work? "Grant received 306 votes on the final ballot, but was unable to achieve a majority. The nomination was made unanimous in a procedural motion" (or whatever is accurate).
 * Yes, your wording is good. It conforms to the source material, so I substituted it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to study and review this article over the next several days, and will add issues here as I find them. – Quadell (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quadell, thanks for undertaking this review. Please, by all means copyedit.  This thing is so big, we could use all the help we can get!  I'll be pretty busy over the next week, but I'll be able to spare at least a few minutes a day, as will my co-editors.  Thanks again, --Coemgenus (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * All issues have been resolved.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Citations are excellent.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All these issues have been resolved.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent article, and I've had a great time reading and reviewing it. It passes all our GA criteria with flying colors, and I'm delighted to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent article, and I've had a great time reading and reviewing it. It passes all our GA criteria with flying colors, and I'm delighted to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)