Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ulysses S. Grant/archive2


 * 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

Ulysses S. Grant

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"When asked which state he hails from, our sole reply shall be, he hails from Appomattox and its famous apple tree." Fellow Wikipedians, I give you Ulysses S. Grant. Soldier, politician, businessman, and author, he bestrode mid-19th century America like a Colossus. Easily the most popular man of his age in the United States, he comes before you in this article which, since it last appeared on these pages, has undergone extensive copyediting and significant content changes, not to mention a thorough A-class review at WikiProject Military history. My co-editors and I think it meets the FA criteria. As the bit of doggerel that I've copied above suggests, we hope to get this on the Main Page by April 9, 2015, the 150th anniversary of Grant's victory at Appomattox Court House. Thank you for your attention. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I am a Wikicup participant, and I believe I would be eligible for points on this, but I have to check with the coordinators -- much of the work was done last year. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt
Support I was an A-class participant. Much improved and very worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks again for your comments at the A-class review. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "Emboldened by Lincoln's call for a general advance": This was "... a general advance of all Union forces" at the end of the A-class review, and many readers won't think these two sentences mean the same thing. There have been a lot of tweaks since A-class, and they're mostly fine from a copyeditor's point of view, but some of them change the meaning, and I have no knowledge of whether they were made by people consulting the sources who decided to change the meaning. But I trust Coemgenus's and Wehwalt's judgment on this.
 * "an immediate taking": ugh.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and the copyediting. I've reworded the parts you pointed out above. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
My interest in the Gilded Age has been stimulated by some fine articles from the Wehwalt stable, and I realise that Grant is a central figure of the period. But I feel somewhat frustrated with this, an evidently well-prepared and accurate account of Grant's life, the issue that niggles being that of length. The article is over 14,300 words long, not the longest-ever potential FA, but within the top half-dozen, I suspect. However, this is  the "main article" in a series covering all aspects of Grant's life; the series collectively  amounts to well over 55,000 words – including a whopping 18,000+ in the article on Grant's presidency. With such an abundance of detail available in the subarticles, does this main article have to be quite so long? The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression, and it doesn't seem that these have been fully exercised here. My chief frustration is that, because of the pressures of my other WP commitments, I simply won't have time to read and properly review an article that is of great interest to me. This is no reflection on the efforts of Coemgenus and the other principal contributors, but it does raise – again – the question of what is, or should be, the accepted maximum length of a WP article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your point is well taken. The article is long, longer than any I've ever worked on. Since before it was made GA, and I have worked to tighten and summarise the prose, with some success. Compare, for example, this |this pre-GA version. I've cut things and had editors object, so we add them back in in the name of consensus. The sub-articles have helped, but have not solved the problem.
 * I recognise that saying "it could be worse" is not a great defense, but it is illustrative of how much information there is out there about Grant, and how much of it various editors wish to include in the article. The size of major articles have crept up over the years across the encyclopedia. I think a lot of this is because things that used to be just stated and linked are now both linked and explained briefly in the article. It makes for a more fluid read, but it does add to the length of the thing.
 * If you can think of some areas that could use trimming, I will gladly cut them down, but I think we're approaching the point where leaving more out means telling an incomplete story of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A FA quality biography of the leading general of the US Civil War and a two-term president is inevitably going to be fairly lengthy. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how I look at it. We could use better data on this on how people use our articles, as it is, we are just guessing on length.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * – for what its worth I don't think there are any particular issues with length, by my count there are more than 115 currently featured articles that are longer than this one, so no where near "within the top half-dozen". Indeed the top ten largest FAs range from 190 kb to a rather large 248 kb. At approx 138 kb this isn't even close. You can run the script here for these stats . Anotherclown (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of kb is a useless measure of length so far as the reader – or indeed the reviewer – is concerned. It is the number of words in the text, in this case 14,300+, that creates the burden. I'm not sure how many FAs have more than 14000 words, but I suspect the answer is not too many. It is a matter of concern whether these uber-articles get the  depth  of review  treatment that they warrant – are potential reviewers put off by the length and time required, as I was? Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday thanks for clarifying that. By my reading WP:SIZE seems to mainly talk in terms of kbs and I'll admit I don't have any stats readily at hand on regarding FAs and prose size, although you are probably right in saying that this would be at the higher end. I agree longish articles can struggle to attract reviewers due to the work required, although I don't see that that is a warstopper (for instance by my count this article was reviewed by no less than 7 editors during its A class review - where it is unfortunately now fairly rare to get more than the minimum three). Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that Coemgenus has been trimming and has the count below 14,000 now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D
I don't think that I'm qualified to comment on Grant's political career, so I'll limit my coverage to his military career.
 * "not in charge of any company" - would a brevet second lieutenant typically command a company? - the article later says that he commanded a sub-unit of this size only after he'd been promoted to be a captain.
 * You're right, and I deleted this clause.
 * "Grant participated in leading a cavalry charge " - could this be "Grant led a cavalry charge"?
 * Sure could. Fixed.
 * "Grant's mandatory service expired during the war, but he chose to remain a soldier" - do we know why he went from wanting to get out of the Army as soon as he could to deciding to stay on?
 * His memoirs don't say, and I don't recall his biographers giving a reason, either, though I'll recheck this evening.
 * "He grew unhappy separated from his family" - this wording is a bit awkward
 * Should be better now.
 * The material on 1862 doesn't really explain Grant's role and campaign strategy - he and his army simply move from battle to battle, meeting other friendly and enemy armies. It would be good to explain how Grant fitted into the Union war effort in the west at this time.
 * I'm not sure how much of Halleck's strategy we can add within the space constraints. I noted that Forts Henry and Donelson were important to control of the rubbers, so the reader should understand why the army went that way, I think.
 * "Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Grant had not reacted strongly to Southern secession.[46] The news of the attack came as a shock in Galena," - this para seems a bit out of place given that it breaks up the chronological order of the article. I'd suggest reallocating this material.
 * Yes, it should be more chronological now.
 * "the attack be conducted with oversight by navy Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote" - what's meant by 'oversight' here? Was Grant under Foote's command?
 * The chain of command isn't clear in the sources, but this, at p.97 in McFeely, explains better. Halleck didn't approve it when Grant suggested it, but relented when Grant and Foote jointly suggested it.
 * "Lincoln promoted Grant to major-general of volunteers while the Northern press treated Grant as a hero repeating his words "No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender." - this is a bit confusing as the (fairly dramatic) circumstances in this Grant said this aren't explained
 * I reworded this to make it clearer.
 * "now numbered 48,894 troops" - this seems overly specific: I imagine that it's a point in time figure, but the strength of the army would have varied a bit.
 * You're right, it's far too specific. Changed to "nearly 50,000".
 * The start of the first para in the "Shiloh" section should explain what Grant was trying to do, and his relationship with Sherman
 * There used to be more about the Grant-Sherman relationship, but it was cut for brevity. There's still the part about Sherman convincing Grant to stay in the army. I think that's enough. Probably more could be explained in the sub-article.
 * "Grant's troops challenged the Confederate onslaught" - "challenged" is a bit vague, and misses the drama of the battle: the Union Army was largely taken by surprise, but survived as some of its units conducted a determined defensive action
 * I reworded it to better reflect that the Union troops were surprised and driven back.
 * "At dawn, Grant counterattacked, adding 20,000 fresh troops from Major General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's divisions" - "adding" isn't quite right: those units (or at least some of them) had arrived as reinforcements during the battle
 * Tweaked the language here.
 * "The battle was the costliest in American history to that point, with total casualties of 23,746, but Lincoln overruled Grant's critics, saying "I can't spare this man; he fights." - the second half of this sentence doesn't sit comfortably with the first (and it seems to relate to the sentence before it)
 * I rearranged it, but I'm still not satisfied completely with how it reads. Any suggestions are welcome.
 * "was the key to Union victory in the West" - you need to explain why (it was the final significant barrier to Union control of the Mississippi)
 * Done.
 * "Grant arrived in Chattanooga by horseback, implementing plans to relieve the siege and resume the offensive" - his development of these plans should be noted (this wording suggests that he was "implementing" someone else's plans)
 * Reworded, should be better now.
 * The para on Grant's assumption of command of all Union Armies should note that he seriously considered making his headquarters in the West
 * Done.
 * "his headquarters with Meade's army" - it would be better to specify that this was the famous Army of the Potomac
 * Done.
 * "Grant and Lincoln devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives" - did Lincoln play a significant role in developing this strategy? My understanding is that he generally let Grant lead the war effort (you could note that Grant's appointment allowed Lincoln to surrender some of the day-to-day direction of the war effort, which he'd been wanting to do for some time but had been unwilling to do as he lacked confidence in Grant's predecessors)
 * I think you're right. I deleted "and Lincoln".
 * "Depending on Lee's actions, Grant would join forces with Butler's armies and be fed supplies from the James" - the first part of this sentence implies that Grant had several options planned to take into account Lee's different potential responses, but then the second part of the sentence specifies only one option
 * True. I reworded.
 * "The costly assault at Cold Harbor was the second of two battles in the war that Grant later said he regretted" - what was the other one?
 * An assault on the Vicksburg trenches. I added a parenthetical to that effect.
 * "Unbeknownst to Lee" - this is a bit confusing. "Without being detected by Lee" perhaps?
 * Done.
 * The "Commanding general" section is probably a bit over-long: the years of political manoeuvring could be covered in less detail Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We've trimmed some where we could over the last few days, but I'll take another look this afternoon.
 * The para starting with 'When the Senate reinstated Stanton' could be trimmed considerably given that it provides a blow by blow account of events. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tightened the language some, but I'm afraid that losing any more will obscure the reasons behind Johnson's impeachment and breach with Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , are these all resolved to your satisfaction? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , is there anything else that needs fixing here? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - I'll follow up later today Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of Grant's military career now looks good. My only additional comment relates to Grant met with Brigadier General William T. Sherman, and the two readied their troops to attack a Confederate army of roughly equal strength at Corinth, Mississippi, a vital railroad junction" - this implies that Sherman held an position of equal seniority to Grant: this is not correct, as Sherman was one of the several divisional commanders in Grant's army. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your review. I tweaked the language in the Shiloh section to make clear that Grant was senior to Sherman. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:UlyssesSGrantSignature.svg: what's the original source for this?
 * I left a query on the original uploader's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To follow up, User:Connormah replied "if I recall correctly this is a trace from a previously uploaded image here on Wikipedia from years ago." --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we should include more details on the image description page, but even that is a bit...vague. Any idea what previous image was being traced? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Battle_of_Fort_Donelson.png needs a US PD tag
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * File:VicksburgBlockade.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, without which the copyright tag cannot be verified. Same problem with File:Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpg
 * Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg, File:Kalakaua_Grant_state_visit_1874.jpg: source link is dead
 * Fixed the first. I could find no good source info for the second, so I replaced it with File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg, which has better credentials (and is a better picture, in my opinion).
 * File:US-$50-GC-1928-Fr-2404.jpg: reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you want here. Should I delete the CC 4.0 license? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , these are all fixed except the last. What should I do with that one? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so, but there's also an OTRS tag on it - any idea what that message says? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea. I left a note on the uploader's talk page, so hopefully he'll be able to help us sort it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the CC 4.0 tag (which may have been part of the original template I was given). Any other questions please ping me.--Godot13 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers
Grant's posthumous journey on his funeral train is a landmark event in Grant's biography. It was of course received at West Point and New York by many dignitaries, military and the general public and covered by newspapers across the country. Back in 2010 when I created the Funeral section I added an engraved image of the train rolling into West Point -- -- but it was removed after being in the article for several years. If it's not going to cause problems I'd recommend restoring the image to the lower portion of the Memoirs and death section, next (on the left) to the paragraph covering the event, as there's plenty of room for it there -- or at least link to that image, rather than to the generic article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Grant's funeral train
 * I think there's room for both images if I use the template.  I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As Grant's journey on the funeral train is the final event in Grant's biography it seemed important to include this image, which, imo, speaks louder than words. I'm wondering if there are any photos in the PD taken of this funeral train. Seems such an event would have been photographed somewhere along the line. I'll poke around just for the fun of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Since Grant was in numerous Civil War battles it might do well for the readers, i.e.esp students and Civil War buffs, to put List of American Civil War battles under See also. Grant is mentioned 17 times in the list.
 * Is the link to History of the United States (1865–1918) in that section perhaps too broad an article, with topics that are, at best, very tangential to Grant, while most of its topics have nothing at all to do with Grant.? e.g. It covers the Progressive Era, Women's Suffrage, the Spanish American War, World War I, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd just as soon get rid of the whole section. "See also" topics, if they're relevant, tend to be linked already in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thst's generally true, but certainly not always. Numerous FAs have See also sections. The list is quite relevant, yet not linked. I'd recommend replacing the History of the United States (1865–1918) link with List of American Civil War battles. I'm sure most Civil War enthusiasts would welcome it as well as many of the general readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The content overall is great, very well sourced, but its placement could use a little management as sections go. Also one of the sections should be renamed. See Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support

The article has made several improvements. While there's always room for more improvement, the article is well written and covers the subject more than adequately. Page length is not an issue for me here, as the article is about an individual who was very involved with U.S. history. i.e. a soldier who fought in two wars, a Lieutenant, then a General, not to mention a two term president who had to deal with the south after the Civil War. Again, a well covered and comprehensive article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support

Comments from SNUGGUMS
Here's my review: Overall, a very well written article. Good luck improving it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned that Grant was not officially baptized unlike his siblings. Any particular reason he wasn't?
 * One biographer, Longacre, suggests his parents didn't make him go to church because he hated music. That's as close to an explanation as I can find. McFeely, Smith, Hesseltine, and Simpson don't mention it. I don't think Brands does either. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then include that within the article Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it in a note. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd include how many siblings he had and their names
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The book, entitled Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, was a success"..... a bit vague, critically or commercially successful?
 * Both! I clarified it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * His death location and burial location should be mentioned in prose
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant geographic location (i.e. Manhattan, New York) Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both locations are now explicit in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "General Grant National Memorial" should link to Grant's Tomb
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "H.W. Brands" → H. W. Brands
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Today his military reputation has recovered, while experts rank his presidential achievements well below average"..... see WP:RELTIME regarding "today", and I'm not sure "experts" is the best word choice
 * Changed to "By the 21st century..." Maybe "scholars" is better than "experts"? I'm open to suggestions. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did the English, French, and Scottish descent categories come from? I don't see any discussion of Grant's heritage within the article.
 * There are editors who add this sort of thing and are very concerned about it. I don't know where it crept in, but I've taken it out. --14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, just a couple more things I noticed:
 * The "S" stands for Simpson, as noted in most (if not all) of Presidential books I've read talking about Grant
 * This was partly explained in a note already. I made it more clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Grant was a shrewd and effective writer" isn't really neutral
 * It is a bit florid. I trimmed that part, should be good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After these, should be good to go :) <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support a well-compiled piece Grant himself would be quite proud of! <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and support! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Karanacs
I think the article is very well-written, but I share the concern above that this is just too long. The events are important, yes, but there's detail here and there that, IMO, doesn't need to be included in this parent article. Just as examples:
 * a) The information about his order for Jewish expulsion is presented twice - one when it happened, once for the political campaign. Seems like this could be consolidated and just referenced once.
 * b) I don't really care who he appointed Postmaster General, etc. I would expect most of the information on his appointments to be in the child article on his presidency, and not here.
 * c) The paragraph that quotes from his memoirs about the Mexican-American War is, IMO, too long and detailed for this article.

Even in places where the content needs to stay, I think there is room for significant tightening of the prose. I really hate to say this, because it is beautifully written, it's just too much. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. There's not much I can say about length that I didn't already say to Brianboulton after his comments above. I'd only add that it's been trimmed some since then, and that if it's a constant battle to keep the article as small as it is. With a figure as written-about as Grant, there is a massive trove of information to choose from that, somewhat counterintuitively, makes it harder to write a high-quality article. I'm sure there's language that can be tightened (I've acted on your first example, in fact) but trimming too much is difficult. But I'll take another pass and see where the prose could be more economical. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really do sympathize. I just nominated Texas Revolution.  After my first draft, it was 12.5k words.  I eventually managed to cut 20% to get it down around 10k (and I still worry it is too long).  I'd expect an article like this to be 10-12k.  Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Each sub-section for the individual Civil War battles are much more lengthy and detailed than is the coverage for the Mexican-American War and Early life and marriage, yet I don't see any significant reductions being made in those sections. Every one of these battles has a dedicated article for it. There is no dedicated article for Grant's, family and marriage, so it would seem these topics should get more priority than they are presently getting. After all, this is Grant's Biography. Also, there are other FA (Reagan, Obama, etc) that exceed the guideline for page length and there were no issues because it was warranted, per all the important content involved, so we need to stop holding 'page length' up as the most important consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I take your point, and I won't argue with you about how long is too long; reasonable minds may disagree. But the consensus among my co-editors is against any large-scale reductions, and I agree with them. Since this version, we've cut more than a thousand words. I think that's all we can do. Thanks again for reading, and good luck with your own nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I'm alone on this matter, but I personally determine things to be "too short" or "too long" by detail on key aspects rather than prose size/raw size alone. FA criterion 1b is comprehensiveness (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context) while criterion 4 is length (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style). I understand not including certain pieces, and would encourage to address specific parts that seem extra. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Snuggums hits the nail on the head. Comprehensiveness should be our major concern. While the major contributing editors on the Grant page have done wonderful work, they seem to have become overly weary of page length, which is not completely unreasonable. However, in the process comprehensiveness seems to have been neglected from time to time. You can read my comments to that effect, with examples, on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the article were reduced anymore then content and clarification would be lost too...Presidents have Cabinets who can either impact an administration positively or negatively...Grant's Cabinet goes back and forth...I would not reduce the article size. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel 66

 * I think that most of the battle sections could be usefully compressed to some degree without loss of significant detail. Forex, all the information on McClernand in the Vicksburg section isn't of particular importance here, IMO. And the bit about meeting his brigade commanders before Corinth isn't particularly notable as it's a common occurrence.
 * Makes sense. I'll see what I can do. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The ship that captured Virginius was a cruiser, not a destroyer. (fixed)
 * Link monitor. (Done)
 * I see some references that use the year of publication and others that don't. Standardize on one or the other.
 * After today's changes, the only ones with dates should be those where the same author is cited in two different works. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's Are they both major generals?
 * Yes, Buell had been for some time, Wallace was promoted just before Shiloh. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Link to Army of the Ohio, and move the links for the Army of the Cumberland and Army of the Potomac to the first occurrences.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm otherwise satisfied with the battle sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mkativerata
I am with Karanacs, I'm afraid. It is just too long. I think one of the causes has been the breaking of particular aspects of his military and presidential tenures up into subject-based sections (Gold standard; judicial appointments; etc), which lends itself to a manner of writing that focuses on subject matter detail (which is often dealt with in split articles) rather than the biographical overview. Further, on a more micro level, even if that structure were retained there are numerous examples where two sentences could be slashed down to one, two paragraphs to one, etc. In Brianboulton's words, which I can only echo: "The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression" The prose is very good, but it's not as selective, summary-oriented or succinct as it needs to be. These length issues can certainly be fixed; that's why I haven't said "oppose". Though I reckon a completely independent editor might be the best person to do it - it is tough for those who have spent such significant effort writing the article to then cull it. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget though that FA criterion 4 is "Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", criterion 1b is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It would help to state what specifically should be removed in order to maintain comprehensiveness. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved most likely. There are a number of existing daughter articles.  p  b  p  23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is true, . The question is simply which subarticles to move information to. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , : I reduced the length quite a bit yesterday, along with my co-editor, Alanscottwalker. The article now weighs in at 13,446 words, the shortest it's been in years. The cuts were needed, and I don't think we lost anything vital. I don't know if that's enough to satisfy your concerns, but it does out the article more in the mainstream of Featured Articles. Thank you for your comments, I hope you enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. 14,300 down to 13,400 is certainly an improvement, and I think you've hit the correct spot with the biggest cull (judicial appointments). I'd like to see it down further, but nor am I opposing the article's promotion (just emphasising for an FA delegate). --Mkativerata (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Purplebackpack89
I generally believe the content in the article to be worthy of being an FA. If people are concerned about the length, perhaps we should reduce sections that are covered in daughter articles (such as Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War). p b  p  22:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like we all agree that the article is generally well written, so in that event, it would seem that the page length guideline take a backseat to the FA requirement that a FAC be a well covered and comprehensive piece of work. This is not to say we can't condense some of the text in any redundant topics or omit some of the very minor details. Given Grant's very involved life it would seem that page length concerns should be relaxed a bit. It would be almost robotic to not pass this article on the basis of page length alone. The article is rich with information. Btw, most readers don't bother to go to lesser articles, as page view statistics will bear out. If the readers can't find what they're looking for in the main article then they're very likely going to click on something else in their google hit list. Lesser articles don't show up in search results like the plain ol' Ulysses S. Grant biography does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review
Otherwise, everything looks good. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent "Retrieved by" dates (c.f. fn 141, fn 247)
 * These should now be formatted the same way. I'm inclined to just delete them--are access dates still required?
 * WP:CITE requires them for web sources for which publication date is unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'll leave them in. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsure about the reliability of Ackerman. Looks self-published, as Ackerman owns "Viral History Press" which publishes his work exclusively.
 * I just removed that cite, since the material there is already cited to Smith. I'm not sure why the double cite was even there.
 * Longacre: check name/spelling of publisher.
 * Fixed.
 * Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord note
Good patronage at this review, a fair level of support, and necessary checks complete -- but is it stable? There still seem to be daily edits to the article, and a lot of discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The talk page is busy. With an article of this stature and length, it probably always will be. But most of the regular editors seem to bring things there first for discussion, rather than edit-warring on the article page itself, so I think the stability of the actual article is good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Crisco seems to be on board with swapping in Grant for the currently scheduled TFA on the anniversary of Appomattox, April 9. To no one in particular and everyone in general: please don't put the TFA coords and community in an awkward position by giving us very little time to evaluate and prep this one. The sesquicentennial of the end of the American Civil War is a big deal for some people, and we like to give people what they want. We don't have any other suitable FAs that I'm aware of. If it's determined that the article isn't ready, that's fine of course and can't be helped (at this late date), but my sense is that opinions are converging. Converge faster, please :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Review of the "unstable" criteria will show that the article is NOT unstable - edit wars are non-existent and edits taken in response to the review (which almost all the edits have been - in the last two months) do not count as instability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker. The article itself was never really unstable, with no edit wars in recent memory, if ever. Most recent edits involving content were preceded by discussion. While there were a couple of debates recently over some minor points the discussion was not heated and matters are generally resolved, while the article has made improvements all along. A great piece of work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stability isn't an issue; all edits have been in accordance with FAC input per critertion 1e of WIAFA: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Nothing to worry about here. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad that brought everyone out of the woodwork (or the talk page!) -- it's not always clear when there's a lot of talk page activity as to whether changes are in response to the FAC process, plus I wanted to be sure we'd completed the reductions in text that were mooted earlier. If that's the case, we can probably proceed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.