Talk:Jefferson Davis

MilHist B-Class assessment

This looks pretty good and is not very far off B-Class IMO -- main thing needed is a minimum of one citation for each paragraph, and resolution of any fact tags, see following sections:

• Marriage, plantation life, and early political career
• Senator
• Secretary of war
• Return to Senate
• Final days of Confederacy
• Administration and cabinet
• Memorials

On the prose side, I think there are a few too many semi-colons, but that's not a big deal until/unless you take to GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the needed references have now been added; I'm working on a few which will require a bit more digging. At least for now, I've also removed the "Memorials" section, as there is already an article that lists memorials to Jefferson Davis, and it is linked in the "See also" section. Omnedon (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Last-mentioned sounds like a good idea, what was in this article was bound to be only a partial list anyway. Citations look much better, only marriage and cabinet parts still need them I think. Aside from the semi-colon point mentioned earlier, something that doesn't particularly concern me at B-Class level but might at GA or above is the one-paragraph subsections -- generally subsections should contain more than one para to justify their existence, so if taking this further consider either fleshing out the shorter subsections, or merging them with adjacent ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe everything is now referenced fairly thoroughly, with the exception of the paragraph describing the two Muller-Ury portraits; I'm still searching for a way of citing those statements. As mentioned above, there is now a prose section on the cabinet, with references. I've also decreased (though not eliminated) the use of semicolons. Ian, I'm not sure if you normally do this or would be interested, but while I'm writing -- would you be interested in doing a peer review of this article, preparatory to taking it to GA? Omnedon (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. One little prose point I noticed, you have "postwar" in the lead but "post war" under the last portrait -- choose one (I'd thought the first was correct) and stick to it throughout. If you put the article up for peer review, I'd be happy to contribute -- let me know when it's there and I'll make sure it's on the MilHist 'open tasks' list so it gets wider exposure. My gut feel at this stage is that it'd make a decent GA candidate more-or-less as is, and once that's achieved a MilHist A-Class Review would be the logical next step. However if you want the MilHist B-Class (which is strict as far as citations go) ASAP then you'd have to cite the portrait passage or else comment it out for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Naturally if a statement can't be cited, I'd ultimately remove it; but I may still be able to find a source on the portraits. Unfortunately no one else currently seems to be involved with the article, and I don't know where that paragraph came from. In any case, before taking this to peer review (and on to GA), I think I will spend a bit more time digging into the other sections of the article and try to improve it as much as I can. Omnedon (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian, since you are experienced with this, would you say it would be worthwhile to reach B-class now and continue to with improvement and a peer review after that? Would that be helpful, given that the ultimate goal is GA/FA? If it would, then let's go for B-class. Omnedon (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't been around lately. I'm happy that the references parameter of MilHist B-Class is met, so I've upped the MilHist (and Biography) assessment accordingly. I expect that all the other projects should fall in line with the B-Class assessment but as I'm not a member of any of them I've left them as they are for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has virtually nothing about Davis and slavery, either his personal ownership of slaves, his moral/religious support for slavery, or his involvement in the politics of slavery -- both before the war and during the war. I've added a brief mention of his early acquisition of slaves but much more is needed. I don't think that the article can be judged Class B until Davis' full relationship to slavery is discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's an important aspect that needs coverage, and what you've added seems good. I'm not sure I'd agree that "much more" is needed, given the size of the article -- it should not be given disproportionate weight -- but some more, certainly. Since you seem familiar with it, if you can provide additional cited material, that would be great. Omnedon (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

HOW typical of wikipedia - slave owner Davis gets mention, James Pemberton slave does not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.44.213 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

By much more I mean Davis' involvement in, among other things, his involvement w/ the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the call for a slave code in the territories and his role in the split in the Democratic Party in 1860, his actions during the Secession Winter, his use of slaves during the war, as well as his personal philosophy obn slavery.

IMO size will be a problem at some point. He had an eventful life even before the Civil War and a FA level of comprehensiveness should bring the article up to a comparable size of Abraham Lincoln (Good article 140,000 bytes) or George Washington (GA Class at 127,000 bytes). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In recent months I've been working mostly on readability, MOS issues, citation issues, and general improvements; and while I've added some additional material in the way of expanding existing paragraphs, I agree that more is still needed for the article to be really comprehensive. That's why I wondered if you could add some of the material you have mentioned, since you seem quite conversant on the subject. I also will sift through the sources I have for more details; adding the correct amount of detail and maintaining overall balance is always the trick, of course. Omnedon (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of going through the Cooper and William C. Davis biographies to fill in his career at least up to the Montgomery Convention. I noticed that the dates for his election to office in both works put his first election to Congress in November 1845 with his swearing in on 12-8-45 so I'm changing that in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Following on from my comment above, I think that once you guys are satisfied with any additional content, you should certainly submit to GAN and, following that, MilHist A-Class Review. Together, those two will give you a very useful dry run for FAC. My one admonishment is to be sparing with further detail, as I think it's of reasonable length all up for even FA, let alone GA -- as Omnedon suggests, it may be that some juggling of the balance of the existing info is necessary rather than a lot more info over all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson Hamilton Davis?

Did he have such a name?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, his name was Jefferson Finis Davis. -- Lee Tru. 13:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, really?

The third paragraph of the "Later Years" section contains the assertion:

"During Reconstruction, Davis publicly remained silent on his opinions; however, he published a collection of erotic poems dedicated to Robert E. Lee, including the controversial poem,'Yankee and Negroe,' which was explicit about his love of anal sex play. Davis held contemporary beliefs that Blacks were inferior to the White race, and had multiple sadomasochistic affairs with former slaves."

I find myself... somewhat skeptical of this claim.

Zgryphon (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

we have some adolescent male readers who have time on their hands. :) Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

and why are the women of that time so ugly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.44.213 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Re. IP What!? Re. User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] some?-- Lee Tru. 13:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Paper money & inflation

[text ex talk page for Rjensen] Greetings! Your recent edits to the Jefferson Davis article have been very good. One small issue that you might be able to help with: this edit restored some text that may well be accurate, but I have yet to find a reference for the part about printing more paper money, so I had reworded that part to omit it. Would you have any works that you could cite for this? The current citation, which I found and added recently, doesn't cover that aspect. It may not be a big deal, but I thought I would ask about it. Hopefully someone will review the article for GA soon; it's in the queue. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Davis as president was responsible for finances, and Cooper p 378 says "The printing presses ran faster and faster, eventually pouring out a paper money avalanche of $1.5 billion." & "Davis never comprehended the dimensions of the disaster." Cooper (2010). Jefferson Davis. p. 378. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox flag

Jeff Davis served under the "Stars-and-Bars", the history article at WP should picture the flag of his time. The only Confederate flag that meets criteria for historicity and scholarly convention is the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865. (Coulter, p. 116),

Stars and Bars - the Confederate flag of history that J. Davis served 1861-1865, and personally flew 1867-1908 while still not a US citizen.

Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen. He flew the Stars-and-Bars at Beauvoir, Mississippi in retirement until his death, 1867-1908. He was the only man not allowed U.S. citizenship under general amnesty, explicitly excluded from US citizenship by name. Heritage Auction offered the original Stars-and-Bars flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.

The Stars-and-Bars is the flag symbol of the Confederacy and Confederates 1861- 1865 according to reliable sources during and after the American Civil War. Jefferson Davis flew the Stars and Bars 1867-1908 the Infobox should reflect that history-- The alternate image description for the Blood-Stained-Banner suggests the BSB is in use “since 1865”, yet in his “Short History of the Confederate States of America” it is said that the Confederacy “disappeared” since 1865, in the words of Jefferson Davis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted 31 July Lieutcoluseng unsourced infobox flag edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jefferson Davis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 08:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The following is unreferenced: ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Both of Davis' paternal grandparents had immigrated to North America from the region of Snowdonia in North Wales; the rest of his ancestry can be traced to England. Davis' paternal grandfather Evan married Lydia Emory Williams, who had two sons from a previous marriage. Samuel Emory Davis was born to them in 1756. He served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, along with his two older half-brothers. In 1783, after the war, he married Jane Cook; she was born in 1759 in Christian County, Kentucky, to William Cook and his wife Sarah Simpson. Samuel and Jane had ten children; Jefferson was the last and was born on June 3, 1808, in Christian County."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"For eight years following Sarah's death, Davis was reclusive and worshipped her memory. He spent time developing his plantation, studied government and history, and had private political discussions with his brother Joseph."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"That same year, Davis met Varina Banks Howell, then 17 years old, whom his brother Joseph had invited for the Christmas season at Hurricane plantation. She was the daughter of Margaret L. Kempe and William Burr Howell, and the granddaughter of the late New Jersey Governor Richard Howell and his wife Keziah. Within a month of their meeting, the 35-year-old widower Davis had asked Varina to marry him. They became engaged over her parents' initial concerns about his age and politics, and they married on February 26, 1845."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Margaret was the only child of Jefferson and Varina to marry and raise a family. She married Joel Addison Hayes, Jr. (1848–1919), and they had five children. They were married in St. Lazarus Church, nicknamed "The Confederate Officers' "

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"She died on September 18, 1898, at age 34."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Alexander Stephens was chosen as Vice President. On November 6, 1861, Davis was elected Confederate States President without opposition. He was inaugurated on February 22, 1862."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"They were intending to get to a point where they could sail to Europe."

One reference refers to Cuba, but not Europe. Since they fled south toward Florida, this seems to make sense. Will check further. Omnedon (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unable to find a reference to support this, and other references that suggest he wished to reach Texas, I've removed this statement. Omnedon (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"After two years of imprisonment, Davis was released on bail of $100,000, which was posted by prominent citizens of both Northern and Southern states, including Horace Greeley, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Gerrit Smith. (Smith was a former member of the Secret Six who had supported John Brown.)"

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Davis visited Canada, Cuba and Europe in search of work."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"He is interred at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond beneath a life-sized statue. The marker lists his accomplishments as a graduate of West Point, his positions in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate and his military service. His tenure as President of the Confederacy is not mentioned."

I have yet to locate a reference which mentions the marker and what it says; a photograph of the monument bears this out, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient. Omnedon (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo will do just fine ★★King•Retrolord★★ 03:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure how I would do that. Any suggestions? The image is here. Omnedon (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Bertram Hayes-Davis, Davis's great-great grandson, is the executive director of Beauvoir, which is owned by the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans."

Referenced. Omnedon (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please fix the above, so I can get on with the rest of the review. As usual, you have 7 days. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes, this is good progress. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 05:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming along nicely. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to have this finished in the next couple of days. Omnedon (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"He was too often out of touch with public opinion.[5] He lacked support from a political party (since the Confederacy had no political parties).[6] His preoccupation" Three sentences starting with He/His, please rewrite? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 05:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence about lack of political parties seemed to be out of place; the rest of the paragraph focuses on Davis' flaws. That sentence may fit elsewhere. In any case, I've re-written. Omnedon (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

" was warned against further sketching of Spanish military installations" What does this mean? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 05:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads up, Omnedon, Retrolord got indef blocked a few hours ago. I opened a discussion at WT:GAN about what this might mean for his reviews, but my assumption is you'll have to finish up with another reviewer. Sorry for the hassle, but I'm glad to see this one's getting so close... -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've closed this review with a result of not listed, but this is on purely procedural grounds, not any judgement on the quality of the article. It still has the same place in the queue, and hopefully will have a new reviewer soon. I'll ping WP:MILHIST to see if I can see if I can speed up this process for you. Sorry for the delay in your review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. I do appreciate your efforts, though -- thanks! Omnedon (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jefferson Davis/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review, but its likely to be Thursday, at the earliest, before I start reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'm going to spend an hour or so today looking at the article, but I'll not be doing any work tomorrow and that will take us up to Thursday (as mentioned above).

Just on the basis of a quick "look and see", this article has the look and feel of a GA, but with two "non-listing" results at WP:GAN in July 2013 I'm going to look at this nomination in a bit more depth before coming to any firm decisions.

I'm going to start at the Early life and first military career section, work my way down the article and then look at the Lead. This section is mostly looking for "problems", so any that I don't fix as I go will be listed below. Please feel free to add a comment, if necessary, below mine. I find that works better for me that another section being created. I suspect that this step of the review is going to take the rest of this week. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The most recent closed GA was due to the reviewer being blocked. Omnedon (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know. I picked this one up as a "new nomination", rather than let it wait for months on end, and I opened a GAR on another former nomination that was reviewed on that user's userpage, after the ban came into force, and was subsequently passed by another editor on the basis of that talkpage "review". Pyrotec (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Early life and first military career -

• In the first paragraph its rather vague at the start: its unclear whether Jefferson Davis' paternal grandparents were married in the UK or in the North America, its not clear when they immigrated to the North America, nor is it clear whether Samuel Emory Davis was born in the UK or in the North America. It can be deduced that all of these events happened before American Revolutionary War ended (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 according to wikipedia), but that is all. Can these be addressed from the sources to hand?

This has been clarified. Omnedon (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Y Much improved. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, the rest of this section looks OK.

• First marriage and early career -

• The first para looks OK.
• In the second para the clause "Joseph Davis gave his brother 1,800 acres (730 ha)[19] of land adjoining his property,... " needs a bit more clarification. Who does "his" refer to, for instance I assume "brother" refers to Jefferson Davis, but does "his" refer to Joseph or Jefferson. If the latter, Jefferson already has property (presumably a house) and Joseph gives him land next to it, if the former then Joseph gives Jefferson land next to Joseph's property (presumably a house, but could be a house as well as land). Its not clear when this happened, but it was before 1836. Perhaps it was a marriage present?
• The rest of the paragraph is a bit Jumpy in parts on dates: in the 2nd para there is gift of land and ownership of one slave (date not give), also dates of 1836, 1840 and 1845 (but its logically presented). 3rd para is 1835, 4th para is 1835 and the next eight years. 5th para returns to 1840, then 1842, 1843 and 1844. I'm not going to fail the nomination over this, but its a bit messy.

Good points. I've done a rewrite of that section, and may tweak it further, but it should now be in better chronological order, and more clear. Omnedon (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Both comments: Y Much improved, you could probably leave it as it is now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Second marriage and family -

• This new section and paragraph starts off: "That same year, Davis met Varina Banks Howell, then 17 years old, ....". I guess we are still in 1844, so why not make it: "In 1844, Davis met Varina Banks Howell, then 17 years old, ....".

Good -- done. Omnedon (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hurricane plantation is mentioned without further explanation (well they met there at Christmas).

Hurricane Plantation is now defined (and linked) in the previous section. Omnedon (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued (Thursday, at the earliest). Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Second military career -
• This section looks OK.
• Return to politics -
  • Senator -

• I don't know anything about American politics, so I have problems with "Because of his war service, Governor Brown of Mississippi appointed Davis to complete the Senate term of the late Jesse Speight. He took his seat on December 5, 1847, and was elected to serve the remainder of his term in January 1848.[52] He became a regent of the Smithsonian Institution in 1847." I assume that Senator's are elected for a fixed term, such as five years. Speight died part way though office so Davis was appointed to take over in Dec 1847 and this was confirmed by an election the following month (Jan 1848). But how long was the remaining term (I assume, from reading the final paragraph, this was sometime in late 1850 or early 1851)?

Yes, that was not very clear. I have checked the references and clarified all of this. Omnedon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much clearer now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note also in the above extract that He (twice) refers to Davis and his (first time) refers to Davis, possibly the second time refers to Speight, but the third his could apply to either of them (and it probably does not matter which) if I've analysed it correctly, perhaps a minor rewrite is needed.

I believe the edits based on your previous comment have resolved this as well. Omnedon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agreed with that. Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that in the third paragraph the following sentence is amended (as marked) to improve the clarity: "He Davis had not served a year when he resigned (in September 1851) to run for the governorship of Mississippi on the issue of the Compromise of 1850, which Davis he opposed.".

Good suggestion -- that's done. Omnedon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

• • Secretary of War & Return to Senate -

• These two subsections look OK.

• President of the Confederate States of America -
  • First untitled subsection & Administration and cabinet -

• These two subsections look OK.

• • Strategic failures & Final days of the Confederacy -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• These two subsections look OK.

• Imprisonment & Later years -

• These two sections look OK.

• Legacy -

• This section looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This is quite readable, but its possibly not fully compliant with the requirements as it currently stands.
• It should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, but should not include material that does not appear in the body of the article, what appears in the lead should also should also "mirror" what is in the body of the article.
• Firstly, I merged the first and second paragraphs, since the first paragraph was a single-sentence paragraph and the lead was five paragraphs long - the requirement is three or four.
• Secondly, I don't consider the lead to be fully compliant with WP:Lead as it includes material that does not appear to be in the body of the article, such as "At home he paid little attention to the collapsing Confederate economy, and printed more and more paper money to cover the war's expenses, leading to runaway inflation.[2][3]", "His diplomatic efforts failed to gain recognition from any foreign country." and ""stiff-necked, unbending, doctrinaire, and overbearing"; and, there are significant (in terms of prose) sections in the body of the article that are not covered in the lead.

• Looking at the Lead and the article alternatively several times, there is probably not too much "wrong" with the lead, i.e it should be easily fixable. President of the Confederate States of America is virtually covered twice in both the (current) first and second paragraphs. I suspect that they could be merged and summarised more efficiently in the Lead. However, the material in the lead that does not appear in the body of the article either needs to be removed from the lead or added to the body of the article and put back into the lead in summarised form.
• The body of of the article covers his two marriages, resigning a commission to get married, ownership of a (slave) plantation, his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, but these are not mentioned in the lead. Note: in terms of the body of the article the are comparable is size to the President of the Confederate States of America, so that basis I'd suggest merging the two paragraphs in the lead covering President of the Confederate States of America and "reuse" the space to cover these other small topics.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold" for the lead to be fixed. I'm happy to consider any points, questions, etc, about the requirements of a lead; and I'll award the article GA-status once I consider the lead to be compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough review. The article is unquestionably better for having had these issues raised.

Regarding the lede, I am in the process of making some of the modifications you suggest. There are definitely some deficiencies there, now that you have pointed them out. I guess I would question the need to mention, in the lede, his book or the fact that he resigned his commission to get married; we can certainly do that, but I am not sure if they are vital enough. I have mentioned his marriages, his health, and the fact that he was a slaveowner, though; these do seem vital. I've also dealt with the duplication regarding the CSA; I hadn't caught that this was essentially covered twice in two paragraphs. I'll do some more work with this, and will add some text to the body to coordinate with a few items in the lead. Thank you! Omnedon (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would rather not specify what goes in the lede, its not my job as a reviewer to do that. The requirements are given in WP:WIAGA clause 1(b), which includes WP:Lead, and that includes the requirement the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.. It is my job to decided whether it is compliant, so if I see sections / subsections on a particular topic(s) and it/they is/are absent from the lede, likewise material in the lede that does not appear in the body of the article, I'm likely to point it out. I'm also likely to assume the body of article is unlikely to devote sections / subsections to trivia; but I'd rather not make a judgement on what is vital and what is not. The body of the article states "Davis' reputation in the South was restored by the book and by his warm reception on his tour of the region in 1886 and 1887......". I raised the point about the absence of the book from the lede but not the tour(s): but perhaps "After Davis was captured on May 10, 1865, he was accused of treason but was not tried and was released after two years. While not disgraced, Davis had been displaced in Southern affection after the war by his leading general, Robert E. Lee. Nevertheless, many Southerners empathized with his defiance, refusal to accept defeat, and resistance to Reconstruction. Over time, admiration for his pride and ideals made him a Civil War hero to many Southerners, and his legacy became part of the foundation of the postwar New South.[8] By the late 1880s, Davis began to encourage reconciliation, telling Southerners to be loyal to the Union." does adequately summarise the Imprisonment, Later years & Legacy sections. However, that also has to balanced against what else appears in the lede and also in the body of the article (relative emphasis, again). Let me know when you want me to look at the lede again. Pyrotec (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made several modifications to the lede, and have also added some material to the body of the article. I will continue to work on improving this, but I believe the lede is now a better and more complete summary of the entire article. Davis' marriages and family are now mentioned in the lede, as is his health and his memoir. In the body, the issues of inflation and diplomacy are now dealt with, in addition to appearing in the lede. Omnedon (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The comparison between Lincoln and Davis mentioned in the lede is now present in the body as well. Omnedon (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much better now. You have a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting and informative article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status.

I beleive that it has the potential of making WP:FAC, the article history shows that it was unsuccessful back in 2006 but the article is now very different. I would, however, suggest WP:PR as a next step, to gain a wider view than just mine. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your valuable assistance with this. I do plan to take it on to the next stage toward FA at some point. Thanks again! Omnedon (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Second Military Career

I have read the entire article and think it is well done.

There was only one area I thought could use some additional information - Second Military Career - the article does not specify where Davis' regiment was first assigned; with Scott or Taylor. The way it reads now is that you have to assume he was with Scott, But did the regiment go to Taylor's army? I am unsure and I don't want to ruin the narrative style that is there. In addition, more may be needed to show his entire service during the Mexican-American War. I am a new editor and don't have the online resources to do the edit. MacEachan1 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)MacEachan1