Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ulysses S. Grant/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2014 (diff).

Ulysses S. Grant

 * Nominator(s): Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ulysess S. Grant is an important figure in American History. I believe the Ulysses S. Grant article deserves FA status. The article is thoroughly researched and edited. Any controversial sections are previously discussed and remedied. The article is neutral and does not attempt to view Grant in either a negative or positive way, void of POV. The narration is free of passive sentences, hidden verbs, or clichés. The main sources include William S. McFeely's (1981) Grant: A Biography (Pulitzer Prize), Jean Edward Smith's (2001) Grant, and H.W. Brand's (2012), The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses S. Grant in War and Peace. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Ulysses S. Grant article starts during Grant's early years, continues through Grant's military career prior to the Civil War, Grant's days as a struggling farmer in Missouri, his dramatic military rise during the Civil War, his term as commanding general during Reconstruction, his feud with President Andrew Johnson, the Election of 1868 and eight year presidency, his world tour, bankruptcy, struggle with cancer and the success of his Memoirs. The article concludes with Grant's death and funeral. The historical evaluation is neutral. Addressed in the article during his Presidency are issues such Gilded Age politics, Native American policy, and Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments as to further improvement of the article are welcome and sought out. I recommend that the Ulysses S. Grant article be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments. Welcome to FAC.
 * Some paragraphs, for instance in Overland Campaign and victory and Vicksburg, have no citations at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I will check into finding the appropriate citations. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Citations have been added to closing paragraphs in sections mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Leaning oppose . I've done some copyediting in the lead, but judging by the lead, there's more to do here than I'm going to be able to cover during this FAC. Maybe someone else will step up, and if not, you can nominate the article for A-class, and get help with the copyediting there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking that ... it gets better below the lead, I'll copyedit, maybe ask some questions, and hopefully someone can finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "During this time, Grant quickly perceived that the war would be fought for the most part by volunteers and not professional soldiers.": I get the sense that that has some connection to the paragraph it's in, but I don't know what the connection is.
 * I added context. Grant was required to military train volunteers during his first battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer, down to Shiloh. As always, feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank for your copyediting! Great job! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments Generally good, but very wordy especially regarding the battles. Regrettably, I have no time for a full review.  Some of these suggestions may be out of date, with Dank's edits


 * Lede
 * " following his military successes in the American Civil War. Under Grant, the Union Army defeated the Confederate military; the war, and secession, ended with the surrender of Robert E. Lee's army at Appomattox Court House." It strikes me this can be consolidated (ending the previous sentence with a period). " As commanding general, Grant led the Union armies to victory in the American Civil War, which ended with Robert E. Lee's surrender to him at Appomattox Court House". Makes clearer Grant's role.


 * The Civil War did not end at Appomatox Court Court House. Fighting continued for about a month and then there was a Reconstruction period until 1877. I would change the word "with" to "after" for context. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * " in the administration. " Suggest "in his administration".
 * Some of the later sentences in the first paragraph may be too much detail for a lede, especially the first paragraph and possibly should be moved later in the lede or deleted. Several items are mentioned in multiple paragraphs and could be usefully consolidated, for example the economic discussion in the third and fourth paragraphs.
 * See what you think now, Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Early
 * "She never took occasion to visit the White House during her son's presidency." possibly "She did not visit the White ..."
 * Can something be said about why Grant's family was influential?
 * I went the other way and deleted that bit; I agree that if we say they were influential, then Wehwalt's question should be answered. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside Grant's friends, were any members of his class particularly well-known?
 * "Grant made his way to the front lines to engage in the battle," presumably he was given orders that permitted this? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "the location that made them the happiest" possibly "the place where they were happiest" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * " in a failed attempt to prevail upon the Congress to rescind an order that he in his capacity as quartermaster should reimburse the military $1000 for losses incurred on his watch, for which he bore no personal guilt." perhaps "in a failed attempt to persuade Congress to absolve him of a $1,000 debt to the Army for goods gone astray while in his custody" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * " to continue his service as quartermaster. " this can be deleted if earlier in the sentence you say "Grant's next assignment as quartermaster" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Civilian
 * "but it did not succeed" perhaps "but without success" Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * " and promotion of abolishing slavery." perhaps ", and emancipation of the slaves" Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Civil
 * Was Grant still in the militia when these promotions took place? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Grant's demeanor had changed at the outset of the war, renewing his energy and confidence." Not sure what this means. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The strategic importance of Henry and Donalson might be mentioned, that they commanded the Tennessee and Cumberland at the point where they are closest together, and thus disrupts Confederate movements and trade there. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Confederate stronghold of equal numbers " 48,894 Confederates? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vicksburg
 * I'm not sure I like the way you've set up the discussion of Gen. Order No. 11. You excuse Grant before telling us about it, then after doing so quickly excuse him again.  Criticism is minimal and consigned to late in the paragraph, and, after all, it was the fault of "overly aggressive" cotton traders.  I think a more balanced approach is needed here.  This is part of what Grant is remembered for.  Cmguy777 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: The section is neutral. Added criticism. Also put in more information from Grant's point of view. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * so at the end of the first day" of what? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "refugee-contraband slaves" I would simply say "slaves" or "former slaves" (after all, they had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation). Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: McFeely refers to the slaves as contraband of war. I took out the word "refugee" and refer them as "freedmen" after the Emancipation Proclamation. I also added the term African-American to the section paragraph and added more context. Eaton was put in charge of the "contraband slaves" prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in December 1862. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the word "contraband" since I could not find the term in the wording of the Confiscation Acts. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the word "freedmen" from the article section since Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation does not use the term "freedmen" in the document only that the slaves were set "free" "forever". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "and were vulnerable to" "who might be killed by", perhaps
 * It strikes me that the blow-by-blow description of the battles, in what is necessarily a long article, might be shortened considerably.
 * Comments: The battles have been summarized yet content is needed to be preserved. There needs to be a description of the battles in order to give the reader further understanding of the Civil War and Ulysses S. Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I may look in again later, but right now there's more to do than I have time to comment on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded to all of these that didn't require checking the sources, down to where I stopped copyediting at Shiloh. See what you think. -Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good job Dank! Thanks. I added information to the lede covered in the Ulysses S. Grant article. I kept the corruption charges to one sentence. The historical reputation sentence also covers Grant's defense of corrupt appointees and his conservative response to the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll look back in it may take me a few days to do so my Internet is limited right now. It would be good to have this as an essay that would mean we'd have everyone from Andrew Johnson to McKinley as FA except for Garfield--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that, good work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * You are inconsistent, through the article, in your capitalization of "Union Army" vs. "Union army". 10-3 for the former, by my count.
 * Military career
 * "that territorial gains" since you have not mentioned previously, perhaps "that the territorial gains from the war"
 * "spread slavery throughout the nation" I don't see this. It did nothing to increase slavery, say, in Massachusetts.  However, it did expand the territory open to slavery under the Missouri Compromise. Suggest saying that, or similar.
 * How long was Grant required to serve because he was at West Point? If he served longer than the minimum, at what point did he change his mind? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: Grant was required to serve four years after West Point. That would make his mandatory military service up to 1847. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The word "intemperance" twice in a short space is jarring. One is in a quote; however, the other is not.  Cmguy777 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "to rescind the resignation" perhaps "to refuse the resignation" 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments: I used the word "repeal" 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Shiloh
 * "advance at Forts Henry and Donelson was the most significant advance" perhaps the first "advance" can be "victories" Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "bivouacked nine miles south at Pittsburg Landing" Nine miles south of what? And a metric conversion, I suppose 14 km, should be inserted.  Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "missing division" the reader is likely to be puzzled by this. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "so at the end of the first day" I doubt all this was built in a day, if it was, it should be specifically dated, not "December 1862". I would rephrase, perhaps deeming them "attempts".  Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "After the failed assault," surely assaults Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "refugee-contraband slaves displaced" I still don't like this phrase. I think you're saying more than the reader is going to get. It doesn't sound as if Eaton did what Lincoln intended.  Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worth recounting the (possibly apocryphal) story of Lincoln saying that if Grant was a drunkard, he'd send a barrel of his brand of whiskey to his other generals. 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment:I added the "I can't spare this man; he fights" quote from Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Chattanooga
 * I'm not too familiar with the events of the battle, but you mention Hooker taking Lookout Mountain after you've said he was already there, sending weapons etc. to the besieged federals. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * " be fed supplies from the James River." Perhaps "be supplied via the James River" Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can be clearer that Grant was willing to expend troops to bleed the Confederates as the latter had fewer to spare.

Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments: I added that Grant knew a war of attrition due to Lee's limited troop replacement would be successful. This war of attrition, however, was dependant on if Lee would fight in an open field. Lee obviously did not take Grant's bait knowing the same thing that Grant would be victorious. That is why the first battle was in the Wilderness. There after Lee began to entrench his forces. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "defeated Early, saving Washington from capture." I'm very dubious that Early could have captured Washington, given the heavy defenses around the capital.  Or held it. Possibly overstated.  Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although Grant approved the Battle of the Crater, it's not like he thought of the idea. (link needed). Also, the idea wasn't bad, it's that the Union troops didn't advance through the crater fast enough.  Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Insert Comments: The Crater may have been a success and a failure. A success at blowing up Lee's line defense and a psychological defeat for the Confederates. Lee retaliated by blowing up a Union barge and wounded Grant's aide Orville E. Babcock in the hand. There were many casualties on both sides and the war tended to take a more sinister side using deception. Of course the Crater failed to stop the War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The description of the peace conference should have a link to Hampton Roads Conference. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would probably mention that the problem with the terms concluded by Sherman were that they were political in nature, effectively leaving the North Carolina state government in place. It may be explained more clearly in our Andrew Johnson article, which does indicate that Johnson played a role in telling Sherman to stick to military surrenders.  I suggest that a similar brief explanation be included here.  Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Celebrations etc.
 * The events in the second paragraph need dating. The Swing Around the Circle was in 1866, for example.
 * Congressional etc. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A sense of why Grant concluded the things you mention in the first paragraph might be helpful. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: This section has been expanded. Explanations have been given for Grant's view point. Also more information on the Grant Johnson fued. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "arguing that Congress should allow representatives from the South seated recognition." Overly complex. The South elected putative representatives and senators in elections (mostly excluding blacks) in 1866.  Congress wouldn't seat them.  Make this clearer.  Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments: Mentioned Johnson wanted to seat Congress with Southern white conservatives. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Radical mayor of Baltimore" Radical Republican? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Military governors general" I don't recall the use of the term "governor general", which has a British Commonwealth air about it. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, given the limited relevance of the Baltimore incident given the warfare between Johnson and the Republicans, I'd rather have the same space spent in an explanation of the deteriorating relations between them. As it is, you pop into the political situation now and then, and I'm not sure that readers who are new to the situation are going to understand it. Since Grant was a key player in all of this as both sides wanted his support, a better explanation seems warranted.  Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: I added information in the Ring around the circle tour section on Grant and Johnson fued. That is when Grant privately pulled away from Johnson. Grant's publically disassociated with Johnson in 1868 over the Tenor of Office Act and returning the Secretary of War office to Stanton. Grant would have committed a felony if he did not return the Secretary of War office back to Stanton. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your description of the Tenure of Office Act overlooks that it only protected officeholders during the term of the president who appointed him, and Stanton was not appointed by Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Johnson's true frustration was with Grant's taking the Radicals' side." So you're saying Johnson was lying in saying he thought Grant had broken his word? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments: Don't forget that Grant would have been breaking federal law and been fined. Had he stayed on as Secretary of War Grant would have not been elected President, since he would have been a felon. Don't you think this was another attempt at getting Grant out of the way so Johnson or another Democrat could be elected President. Grant would have been a convicted felon. According to Grant he had no choice but to give up the office. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "unsuccessful attempt to impeach Johnson". Really?
 * Given that Johnson was impeached, i.e. Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, I'm again feeling that there's more to be done here that I can help with. I'm certainly not in a position to fact check the article, I have limited internet right now. That one is just so ... glaring, I'm not sure what more I can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Image review: Well, all images are out of copyright, but I think we can do a bit better. I'm working to improve it. On which subject, what do you think of this, cropped rather tight, to replace the current sketch of his wife? Alternatively, this shows her alone, and is a better photo of her, but leaves out his children. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest starting a new article titled "Family of Ulysses S. Grant". We have to keep this article size managable. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a picture of her in there, it's just a very bad engraving that should be replaced; I'm trying to decide which of two better images to replace it with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Portrait photos will work in the article. I don't agree the engraving is bad, however, a good photo portrait of First Lady Grant is acceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick observation only: G'day, when I run the Harv Errors script it identifies a few issues with the references, including a few short citations that don't seem to point to a long citation, for instance "Whyte, pp. 18–39"; "Ackerman, pp. 90–91" and "Murray & Blessing". Are you able to find the bibliographic details for these and add them in, please? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How is the article coming along? I think there have been great improvements to the narration and context. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how familiar you are with the FAC process, but all of those comments above are changes the reviewers think you should address. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am trying to go through each one that has not already been addressed. Any help is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Footnotes should immediately follow punctuation without spaces
 * "According to Simon, party defections, the Panic of 1873, increase of scandals, and the North's retreat from Reconstruction weakened Grant's second term in office" - source? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are still a few Harv Errors to be corrected
 * Missing bibliographic info for Murray & Blessing, Ackerman, Whyte Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - suggest creating a Further reading section
 * Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
 * FN80, 133, 147, 190: page formatting
 * Don't mix templated and untemplated full citations
 * Check alphabetization of Sources
 * Be consistent in whether publisher locations are included and if so how they are formatted
 * No need to include "Pulitzer Prize" in the citation
 * ISBN for Perry?
 * Publisher for Rhodes?
 * Year and ISBN for Simpson?
 * University of North Carolina Press or The University of North Carolina Press? Check for consistencies in naming. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from SNUGGUMS
 * I will look through this article and leave comments within a week.... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I appreciate the nominator's efforts to address points raised, as well as SNUGGUMS' offer to review, but this has been open almost six weeks with no consensus to promote emerging, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I know this has been through GAN and PR, but I'd suggest that after addressing outstanding points it might benefit from a nomination at MilHist A-Class Review before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.