Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) After reading through the article, I can tell that it is well on its way to GA status. That being said, I am quick-failing it for the following reasons:[reply]

Citations: There should be at least one cite per paragraph; many of his pre-presidency ones do not. Plus, few book sources are used in comparison to online. For someone such as Grant there's no reason not to make books for the majority of citing.
Length: At 76kb of prose, the article is just too long to be readable. Length isn't bad necessarily, but when the size includes many paragraphs on his reforming of cabinet members (the Bristow one if 4 paragraphs, and for the Grant article could easily be one at most). That section's prose would be better suited in the respective articles of the cabinet members. Also, a couple of the scandals (salary grab) don't mention why they belong in Grant's article (for example, the salary grab doubled the president's wage, yet that's not mentioned).
- Noting that, I think that Grant's presidency can be tapered off into its own article, with only the more major pieces and parts of his presidency left in the main article. (As an example, Bill Clinton's presidency article is 21kb, while the main one is 50kb. Long, but not overly so. See Category:Presidencies_of_the_United_States for examples of how to go about doing that)

I appreciate the work you've done so far on the article, though it is not at GA status just yet. Cite what needs to be cited and trim anything that's only tangentially related to Grant, and we should have ourselves a real nice article soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Yes. I can look for the site notes. I know the article needs to be compressed. The difficulty is making the article less words without giving away impact and meaning. The reader needs to have enough information to make decisions on Grant. I thought about having the Scandals put in a few Paragraphs including the Reforming Cabinet members. Making a seperate Cabinet page would be good. I put the reforming cabinent members in their because not all of Grant's appointments were unqualified crooks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

The article reads like it was written by a Year 7 student eg There were approximately 11 scandals (- either there were eleven or not) and the spellos. The text is often quite convoluted so as be quite meaningless at times eg. the section Panic of 1873. I do not know much about this fellow so I am loathe to start trying to edit the bits which are particularly egregious in case I misstate the facts. Silent Billy (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the sources when I wrote this. I would rather put facts in rather then eloquent prose without the facts. Of course, it would be best to have both. The attempt at the Panic of 1873 was to show what the Administration did to curb the Panic. The policy was basically to inflate the market with money in order for farmers to be able to pay for long term debts. The article states that Secretary Richardson release $26,000,000 in greenbacks to inflate the economy. That should not be too hard to understand. I can delete the word "approximately" in the Scandals section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

I rewrote the Panic of 1873 to make it more fluid reading. If more changes are neccessary please make them. I also took out the word "approximately" from the Scandal section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]