Talk:George Washington Cullum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reluctance to promote[edit]

'He was appointed brigadier general of volunteers to rank from November 1, 1862 on November 10, 1862 but President Lincoln had to submit the nomination four times before the U.S. Senate finally confirmed it on March 11, 1863.'

Why was the Senate reluctant to confirm the appointment? Valetude (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington Cullum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:George Washington Cullum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Images.

  • I am taking the label in Commons to mean that the image's use in this article is allowable.
  • Given the length of the article it seems low on images. Cullum was involved in many of the great events of his time; I would have thought that there was an embarrassment of potential images.
    • All images are labeled as free use.
    • An appropriate number of appropriate images appropriately labeled.

Prose.

  • Do you know when Description Of A System Of Military Bridges, With India-Rubber Pontons was published? And should it not be listed under "Publications"?
    • added
  • "... and soon a colonel." reads a little clumsily. And in the table it states that both promotions were on the same day. In which case could this be rephrased to indicate this?
    • it was a different promotion.
  • "proposed military bridges and Army Corps of Engineers officers proposed for promotion" has "proposed" twice.
    • Got it.
  • In the rank table you identify four different components. It would be helpful to a reader to briefly explain what these were and how Cullum could simultaneously[?] hold different ranks in different components.
    • Quite frankly I don't know about the latter. Hawkeye7 might have an idea. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      From Ezra Warner's classic Generals in Blue (1964), p. xvi:

      It was possible to hold four separate and distinct ranks at one and the same time. Many officers of the Regular Amy, who held substantive and brevet rank, obtained leaves in order to accept commissions in the volunteer service, where substantive and brevet rank also existed. Ranald S. Mackenzie at the end of the war was a full-rank brigadier general of volunteers, a major general of volunteers by brevet, and a brigadier general by brevet in the Regular Army, although his substantive rank in the Regulars was captain of engineers.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I knew that . But, for example, on 3 March 1863 you have him being a colonel in a "component" (I assume that means a component of the US Army?) called "Staff—Aide-de‑Camp to the General-in‑Chief"; a brigadier-general in the US Volunteers; and a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Corps of Engineers. A little later that month he gains his first rank in the US Army, as a brevet colonel. I am not sure what rank he is breveted from as this is the first mention of this "component". I think that I know what you are trying to say, but I think that a reader would be somewhat confused.

    • Incidentally, Warner writes that Cullum's biographical register "is open to criticism in some respects due to Cullum's anti-Confederate bias". Few people would say that today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency it may be worth abbreviating the first mention of "United States Army Corps of Engineers" in the table to 'Corps of Engineers'. Or expanding the others, although I think that the "United States" can be assumed.
    • Done

Neutrality. There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.

Broadness.

  • Cullum seems to have died remarkably wealthy for a retired military man. Do you know where his money came from?
    • I seem to remember reading that it was just because he lived very frugally. I could probably find where it is sourced, and add, but it didn't seem of note to me.
      • During the Civil War a US Colonel earned $2,544 a year. It is not possible that he accumulated well over $350,000 (150-200 years gross salary) out of his pay. This is not necessarily a deal breaker, but does go to broadness in my mind.
        • He was a very prominent citizen. His wife was a prominent member of society, and by all accounts very wealthy (here). Turns out that most of the money came from Henry Halleck, who's widow he married. Halleck was very wealthy see here.
  • Good. I have made a minor change to the article. Could you just check that you are ok with it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cullum sent many prisoners to St. Louis before he received War Department instructions..." Why was Cullum sending prisoners anywhere? What was his role? Did he accompany Grant or was he rear echelon, forwarding prisoners sent back by the field army?
    • This was as chief of staff as Halleck
  • "This relieved pressure in Chicago..." What is the significance of Chicago?
    • Camp Douglas. The idea is that he sent some prisoners to St. Louis first. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References.

  • Ref 1. I know that you have linked to a Google Books page, but you still need to provide the normal referencing information, eg page number.
    • added
  • Ref 1. The link provided does not substantiate the occupation of Cullum's father. This may be linked to the point above.
    • It's in the second source
  • Ref 7 does not link appropriately. I think that you need this.
  • Ref 7 Page 32 of the book referenced does not support " In 1848, he introduced a rubber coated fabric inflatable bridge pontoon, which was used in the Mexican–American War".
    • REMOVED source 7.

Hi Eddie891. Note comments above. It is a nice little articles, but I seem to be hitting a greater than normal number of issues. So I am going to pause part way through for you to have look at and resolve or come back to me over the points above. In particular could you check that all of the links in the references go to where you want them to and that they actually support the text they reference. Anything which is unclear, don't hesitate to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Gog the Mild: My computer is suffering right now. Not sure why, but suffice to say that it may take me up to seven days to fix the issues. Please be patient, and I'll make an effort to fix the issues in the very prompt manner. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take your time. If you are still having problems in 7 days, just give me a ping. Within reason there is no deadline. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: Some good work so far. It looks nice. Two comments from me above. I won't open any new topics until you let me know that everything is in shape for me to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I have just over written a comment by you. Apologies. Reinserted. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild: I think I got it all. The problem with sourcing was because the original article consisted mostly of a public domain incorporation of the New International Encyclopedia, and no inlines, and I forgot to add them. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:

  • I have done a little copy editing. Revert anything you don't like.
  • The lead could do with expanding. It, just, meets the guidelines, but I don't feel that it does the article justice
  • "and was chief engineer at the Siege of Corinth". This should be in the Civil War section.
  • The second sentence of "Civil War and later military service" is a little confused. Could you have a look at the punctuation.
  • From memory, Grant didn't capture both Donaldson and Henry "on February 16, 1862".
  • The article reads that sending 7,000 prisoners to Camp Douglas "relieved pressure in Camp Douglas".
  • "For the rest of the Civil War, Cullum inspected or built defenses at...". I found all the commas (and the one missing comma) in the following list confusing. Could you colon and semi-colon the list please.
  • "In 1862, Cullum was appointed Chief Engineer of Halleck's armies." May be worth a mention, or a link, of just what "Halleck's armies" were.
  • For completeness I will flag up my concerns over the use of "component" in the rank table, outlined above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Just spotted your note re components. (Personally I dislike that type of notation, because it is so easy to overlook, and always use the 'Note 1', 'Note 2' style. But that is just preference.) Yes, that covers it. I hadn't realised that an officer could hold a completely separate rank as a member of a senior general's staff. (Did other generals have similar coteries? Who made the promotion decisions?) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Looking good. References:
  • The pdf of Biographical register of the officers and graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. you link to has a different publisher and location than the ones you use. Is there any reason why you don't give an OCLC?
  • Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders does not have a publisher location (Baton Rouge). The publication date given is before ISBNs were developed. Assuming that you are referring to the 1964 edition it should be an OCLC (734082933).
I think that's it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Think I go them all. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Looks good. I am about to go to bed. I will run an eye over it tomorrow, and if I dion't pick up anything I have missed you have a hard earned GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: A couple of minor tweaks, revert them if you don't like them.

Congratulations, A fine article. Well written and tightly referenced. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington_Cullum&oldid=1212231717"