![]() | Grant's Tomb has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 21, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Grant's Tomb appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
I replaced this image with a better one (in my opinion). Higher resolution, subject not cropped, better exposure and angle.
--Dschwen 15:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there any support for the claim that the motion picture "Glory" apparently single-handedly changed attitudes towards Grant's Tomb PLUS "suddenly" made Civil War battle reenactments and battlefield sites highly popular. On what are these claims based? If there was a surge of interest in the Civil War at that time, I suspect that Ken Burn's "Civil War" (1990) could have had much more to do with it.
In responding to the paragraph above and as the person who had previously mentioned the film "Glory" .... I fully agree with you that the excellent mini-series by Ken Burns in 1990 also helped to rekindle interest in the Civil War nationwide. It was also about this time that PBS did a documentary specifically on the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, in direct response to the popularity of "Glory" and the sense that the role of Black-Americans had not been properly accounted for in Civil War histories prior to 1989. I will edit the article right away to mention Ken Burns in addition to the feature film. Message from DennisJOBrien@yahoo.com.
My original question still stands... what documentation is there that either "Glory" or『Civil
War』suddenly made Civil War battle reenactments and battlefield sites highly popular or changed
attitudes toward the monument? For instance, did visits to the tomb really increase after these
productions or is that speculation. If there is support for such claims, then fine -- But without
some support, it seems a stretch.
I looked into the contributions of Frank Scaturro after reading this article and came away with the sense that he was a real hero in sparking the tomb's restoration... even more than the article currently says. I wonder whether much progress was made in the late 80's and early 90's to fix the tomb until after Frank Scaturro began his campaign, which was around 1993, or so (if I recall what I read correctly).
Absent documentation, rather than speculate about a claimed sudden increase in Civil War interest in the late 1980's (there has always been huge interest in the Civil War) AND it's possible effect on restoration of the Tomb perhaps Frank Scaturro's efforts to publicize the tomb's condition and the negative comments left by visitors could be expanded to more closely reflect his contribution. He'd had an interest in Grant as a young boy, had worked at the tomb for the Park Service and apparently felt obliged to expose the tomb's condition until something was done about it.
In response to your paragraph above, I agree fully that there has always been a sizable interest in Civil War history -- as there should be. I was working in the historic preservation area in Virginia during the late 1980's, and early 1990's. I had not visited Grant's Tomb yet (until after restoration). But I can definitely say that interest in our park sites picked up after the popularity of both "Glory" and the Civil War TV series by Ken Burns. I don't have actual visitor numbers to cite for verification, but someone must have them somewhere. It is true that the desecration of Grant's Tomb mirrored the urban problems that happened across the nation in the 1960's and 1970's, particularly in New York City. New York began to come back in the late 1990's, and there was a big effort to clean up the subway trains and Central Park. It is no wonder that the ugly Grant's Tomb suddenly stuck out like a sore thumb at that point, and clearly needed restoration inside and out. Frank Scaturro is certainly a hero and nationwide publicity is what did the trick. I will go and edit the article a bit more to try to show that New York City was making a comeback at the time that Frank brought our attention to the sad situation of the tomb. Perhaps others can add some factual information into the article to lend additional weight to it. Message from DennisJOBrien@yahoo.com on October 29, 2006.
The image, reproduced at right, looks as if the glass plate negative was reversed when it was printed. If the wide boulevard is Riverside Drive, (on the other side, the park side towards the Hudson, the land drops away steeply) then this would have to be a view from the north, where there are a series of terraces and steps, rather than the wide esplanade leading to the structure, as shown here.
Should this image be deleted?--Wetman (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As seen [1], the offical name of the memorial is "General Grant National Memorial." I think that should be the name of the articlem and Grant's Tomb should be a redirect. --Coingeek (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the template that was originally added to this section on June 26, 2008,[2] (not August 2009 as was indicated[3]). There was never any explanation as to why the template was added, nor has there been any discussion in the following 21 months. The template was therefore pointless. If anybody has any opposition to this removal, please feel free to restore it but an explanation as to why it has been restored should be included here; otherwise it serves no purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note the Popular Culture section regarding this claims it is a riddle with the correct answer being 'no one', however I can find no evidence that it was intended in the way asserted to be there, but was merely meant to be an absurd question, because it was so easy and straight forward (also buried has other secondary meanings/nuances that would work with interred, and it's a common way to refer to it so it seems doubtful to me even as a pedant). Also apparently the question predates Marx, with the earliest written example being a 1925 newspaper column (that appeared to be a collection of preexisting quips) “Ed Wynn’s Question Box". There's a link here from the site Quote Investigator that goes into the various evidence and discusses the question, with supporting reliable cites and references within which could be useful. The section as it stands is not referenced at all.Number36 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think that this section is incorrect. It's the direct opposite of what is stated on Wikipedia's "You Bet Your Life" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.129.129.169 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion concerning the definition of President Grant's final resting place. Some articles state that Grant is in a crypt, but I don't know if this is the correct term. The word "crypt" has multiple definitions. The most recent definition of this word is "a chamber in a mausoleum." In ancient times, a crypt was a large room that contained the the remains of mulitple dead people.
President Grant is interred in a red, granite sarcophagus, which is located in an atrium within the mausoleum. I don't think that "crypt" is the right word to describe the location of the sarcophagus. Also, is Grant in a "tomb" or a "mausoleum?"
When I edited this article, I replaced most entries of "crypt" with "atrium," because I think that atrium is a better choice of words to describe the location of the sarcophagus. Grant's sarcophagus is in an atrium, which is in a tomb, which is in a mausoleum. Synonyms can include "rotunda" and "enclave," but I don't think that the word "crypt" belongs in the terminology.
Anthony22 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.crypt would be wrong, as by definition it is an underground room or vault beneath a church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.35.178 (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A verb has been dropped from Grace's letter. I can't supply it. An editir should check it against the passage in Koch. Wetman (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grant's Tomb. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the page should be called the General Grant National Memorial with a redirect from Grant's Tomb. Otherwise, it is like a page about Hillary Clinton being called "Crooked Hillary" ...
I also think that, since two people are interred in the tomb, Mr. and Mrs. Grant, it should be referred to as "Grants' Tomb." Ddnile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Part of the August 2023 backlog.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Removed a possible wikilink mistake. See below. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead contains only cited info in article, layout good. No other issues. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Contains three sections that follow layout guideline. Fixed a cs1 maint issue. All good. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See below. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything seems to have a citation. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. | Uses material in the public domain. No issues. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Definitely covers everything, unless people want to learn the geological history of the granite used. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Despite it's length, reasonably the sections themselves are small-ish so creating any subarticles would be unnecessary. My humble recommendation is that if any future expansions should exceed the total readable word count of 15,000, a subarticle detailing the history should be made with of course keeping a summary of that article on this page. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Seems neutral enough overall. Both positive and negative reception is provided. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Apart from minor copy edits, article is stable enough for review. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Either public domain or from Commons. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | In relevant sections with suitable captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
While representatives from other states favored relocating the president's remains, New York representative were opposed.
Were there multiple NY representatives or just one? If just one, I'd add their name.
The facade is modeled after the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus with Persian elements.
I feel like this sentence cuts off abruptly. "with incorporated Persian elements"? Something along those lines.
Spot-check: 1, 14, 27, 32, 47, 50, 67, 75, 86, 98, 101, 112, 128, 134, 140, 151, 163, 176, 187, 192, 206, 215, 227, 231, 245, 253, 267, 276, 288, 293, 303, 311, 324, 334, 342, 350, 362, 379, 386, 391, 402, 414, 420, 436, 441, 459, 467, 479, 483, 491, 500, 514, 525, 539, 541, 548
About $1,000 each came from the royalties from Grant's memoirs and a puzzle contest at the end of 1886.Couldn't find in either source how much royalty money was put into the fund.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result was: promotedbyBruxton (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
)
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be loggedatTemplate talk:Did you know nominations/Grant's Tomb; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary, and a quick search, describes "interred" as:
place (a corpse) in a grave or tomb, typically with funeral rites.
So I think the sentence "since neither of the Grants' sarcophagi is underground, nobody is interred at Grant's Tomb." is incorrect. Nobody is buried, but they are interred.
But I may be wrong, often am. johnnycat (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]