The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
... that Ulysses S. Grant(pictured), known for his exceptional horsemanship, set a high-jump record in 1843 while a cadet at West Point that stood for 25 years? — Source: Chernow 2017, pp. 24, 27; Smith 2001, p. 28; Simpson, 2000, p. 17
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Only one comment for this interesting hook—I don't think that the part about West Point is necessary to the hook and makes it longer with no benefit (see ALTs). All offline sources AGF (I cannot access the particular page in Smith (2001), although page 302 in the book does refer to the events). MIDI (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I really prefer the original hook, as it mentions West Point, which is where the record was set, at the same time providing some background into Grant's early military life. Mentioning the world famous West Point gives much more significance and meaning to the record that was set. IMO, the original hook is the most interesting, and will be for most readers, esp students of history and military history buffs. The hook is well under 200 characters, so I don't see any issue about its length. Hoping you'll reconsider. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough about the justification for including West Point. I just feel there's a lot to take in with the hook; it may be under the limit but it seems like the hook is trying to put across too much information in something that should be brief and engaging. Would you consider something similar to the following, which combines the info from your hook with the alts? I'm really not precious, but looking at this objectively (I am no military history buff) I would be overwhelmed with too much information.
Okay, ALT3 would work would nicely, except now it could be taken that it was Grant alone, e.g.on the W.P. track team, that made the jump. The article is about Grant's horsemanship, so it would seem we need something in the hook that indicates this. Not trying to be difficult, but the original hook covers all the bases and is not what I would call a complicated statement. It seems 99.9% of the readers will understand it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not necessarily about readers failing to understand it; my concern is that the hook feels like it is trying to put across too much information for a section designed for its brevity. That said, if I'm the only editor who has this POV then I have no issue admitting I am finding fault where none exists, and if you believe that the hook would be worse-off without all the information in it then fair enough! I would like another DYK contributor to chime in, if they wouldn't mind.
I have noticed two things that would need resolving, however. One part of the hook that does need attention is the use of the word "exceptional". The word is used in the article a couple of times (to describe Grant's ability) but never with a direct citation (that I can see). Given that it's a peacock term, it really needs to be cited or the hook reworded. The second point is that the comma (after the USG link) should come after "(pictured)", not before (see ALT2 for formatting).
With this all in mind, provided a third-party editor would be happy with the hook, this DYK can be approved pending the rewording of "exceptional" as mentioned. MIDI (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the word "exceptional" as anything overstated. It merely means 'the exception', uncommon, apart from the norm, etc. Many of the sources support that idea. Imo, the hook is simple, yet contextual and straight forward. West Point is mentioned to give context to the high jump record; 'Exceptional horsemanship' is mentioned so we know it was an event that involved a horse-jumping endeavor, not a human jump at a track meet, and that Grant was in a class by himself. I will look into the other matters you mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@MIDI: The first sentence in this source refers to Grant's horsemanship thusly: "probably the greatest Equestrian in US history". Garland, 1898, p. 13, says... "At ten years of age he had become a remarkable teamster. He amazed his companions by his ability to manage and train horses." Chernow, 2017, p. 24 indicates... "Everybody noted the perfect harmony that united man and animal when Grant sat erect in the saddle. In horsemanship he was noted as the most proficient in the academy." Instead of saying something like "fabulous horsemanship", or "the greatest horsemanship" I figured "exceptional horsemanship" was more neutral, merely indicating that Grant's horsemanship was more than just commonplace. To make the hook even more neutral ALT5 is proposed.
I've added a reference for the term "excellent horsemanship", so we can use that in the hook (it does really need "exceptional" or "excellent" in it; to me it seems hardly remarkable that someone with a military career in the mid-19th century would have a degree of skill on a horse). I propose the following (and hopefully final!) alt:
'Excellent' ! — Just a note: Some of the things that set Grant apart were, at age five he was doing difficult stunts on bare-back, and then, starting at age ten, driving teams of horses long distances, alone, and that he could manage, train and ride horses that no one else could. One horse at West Point was so unmanagable they were about to destroy it, where Grant stepped in and was riding it within a day or so. The article is full of such examples. He amazed everyone, and in his own day where, yes, almost everyone rode a horse. In any case, many thanks for your help and seeing this through. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I see another DYK reviewer was asked to weigh in a while back. While I think the issues are now resolved, I agree that ALT6 works. While I don’t think Grant’s horsemanship feats were particularly unique (at Wikiproject Equine, we’ve profiled any number of excellent horse trainers), it is clear he was a fine horseman and truly cared about his animals. I support promoting this article to the DYK queue, it’s nicely done. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, ALT6 is good as it still contains all the important points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@MIDI: Is this approved? --evrik(talk) 17:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Only one comment for this interesting hook—I don't think that the part about West Point is necessary to the hook and makes it longer with no benefit (see ALTs). All offline sources AGF (I cannot access the particular page in Smith (2001), although page 302 in the book does refer to the events). MIDI (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
