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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important article. I'll take a look over the next few days and then give some initial comments. My views on the GA process, and how I usually proceed are here. SilkTork *^YES! 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Stable. SilkTork *^YES! 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Images. The images are appropriately tagged and captioned. There are rather a lot of images - the impression is of clutter. Some images squeeze the text, and there are questionable galleries. See MOS:IMAGES and related links, including WP:Galleries. I feel the two galleries could be removed, and consideration given to which of the others to remove or replace or move elsewhere in the article. And consideration given to if there are images which could be included which may be more interesting or helpful to an understanding of the subject than a statue or a stamp. I have inserted File:Washington's Farewell Address.jpg as an example. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• MoS. It's rare for articles to meet all MoS requirements at the start of a review - the most common failing is WP:Lead. The lead of this article is quite good, but does fall a bit short of a suitable overview of the subject. The lead should be able to stand alone as a mini-article, as such readers might expect more of his life story. Currently we have his birth and death and key moments, but these are not joined by the rest of his life and career. The use of images impacts upon WP:Layout, though I have mentioned this above. SilkTork *^YES! 10:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose. The prose is clear and readable and free from basic errors and so meets GA requirements. Any errors I see I will correct as I read rather than listing here. As part of ongoing development, the article could be lifted by a good copy edit. It can be rather choppy and awkward in places - the Career section, for example, reads like a series of bullet points squashed together to look like prose. SilkTork *^YES! 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs. There are references which are organised into an appropriate section. There are some statements however that would benefit from being cited - "Washington's report on the affair was widely read on both sides of the Atlantic"; "Throughout his life, he spoke of the value of righteousness, and of seeking and offering thanks for the 'blessings of Heaven'"; "On the advice of his attorney general, Edmund Randolph, he systematically rotated the President's House slaves in and out of the state to prevent their establishing a six-month continuous residency. This rotation was itself a violation of the Pennsylvania law, but the President's actions were not challenged." These are examples, and are not exhaustive. The sources I've looked at seem appropriate, though I've not yet checked enough to ensure that there is no Original Research. I tend to pass that one later after a bit more background reading and research. SilkTork *^YES! 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links check out OK SilkTork *^YES! 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Coverage. I'll need to do more background reading to be sure that most aspects are covered. The focus seems OK, as the article seems to give fair and appropriate coverage to those aspects it is already dealing with. SilkTork *^YES! 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Tone, presentation and organisation appears to be quite sober and neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informative and helpful article, which manages to convey a lot of often complex detail in a lucid and readable manner. Given the importance of this topic, all those involved in editing and bringing it to this state should be commended. There are some improvements which can be done quite easily to get this to meet the GA criteria, while a couple of other matters may take a while longer. And there may be some discussion on a point or two. I welcome discussion, and can be pinged on the talkpage or by email any time. I will put the article on hold for seven days to see what progress is made, and then review again to pass, fail or hold for a further period. To do:

• Develop lead per WP:Lead to ensure it covers all main points, and works as a stand alone mini article.
• Provide cites for any statements that can be challenged.
• Remove the two galleries and tighten up leads and layout.

In the meantime I will do some background reading and check up on a few more of the references to ensure the article is broad enough and that the sources do support what is being said. SilkTork *^YES! 10:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tidied up the images so the article now meets image criteria and part of the MoS criteria. Lead still needs developing and more robust referencing is required. I will hold another week to allow editors to come forward. SilkTork *^YES! 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few changes per your review, thanks. Sorry for the delay in response. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still waiting for the books I have ordered so I can check sources and background, so I will put this on hold for another seven days two weeks - until September 7. It is not my intention to close this review as a fail without giving everyone involved a fair chance to address any issues, and I will be addressing some of those issues myself as time and motivation allow. Some comments I have made below regarding the lead, and the Early life section could be looked into in the meantime. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fair to say at this stage that unless more people come forward to work on this article I feel that it may not pass GA criteria for "coverage" within a reasonable span of time. I won't fail it on Sept 7th if the work has not been done, but I will assess the situation at that time and may give a firm deadline for specific work to be done which I will identify at that time. SilkTork *^YES! 09:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next to No original research there is a question mark, could you provide an example of such research? Thanks, Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I note above, I tend to pass the OR aspect once I have looked at a few sources and checked that what is said in the article is what is said in the sources and is not an interpretation. There's nothing for anyone to do regarding that aspect of the GA review unless I feel that OR has taken place, in which case I will point out the possible OR and ask questions about it. As an example - a statement like "Washington began to pull himself out of debt by diversification" could be OR if sources do not directly support this view, and the statement was made on the basis of a source saying that Washington switched from tobacco to wheat, and another source mentioned that Washington was also involved in horse breeding and fishing, and a third source saying that Washington was out of debt by 1773. A conclusion could be reached that Washington cleared his debt by moving from tobacco into wheat, horse breeding and fishing. However, we see from the article that he cleared the debt by inheritance. And there is the possibility that Washington had been involved in horse breeding and fishing before he acquired the debt. The point is that we mustn't make conclusions from the sources. At this point I don't know if the statement is true and accurate or has been assumed - the only way I will know is to examine the sources. There are sources listed - though no online link, so I either have to track down those sources, or do my own research into the statement. I am assuming the statement is correct, though I do like to check a handful of such statements before passing the OR criteria. Does that explanation help? SilkTork *^YES! 10:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues

According to historian John Ferling, Washington had serious doubts about his own health and he did not expect to live very long since both his half brother and father died relatively young. Nothing is mentioned in the article about his father dying. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to where you found this? Thanks. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze, pgs. 275, Oxford Press, 2000. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy in Washington's time was much lower than today. Washington's father died when he was 49, which is older than average for the time. However, your comments do reveal that George_Washington#Early_life could do with an overhaul - indeed, it might be considered if all or some of Early life of George Washington could be merged back into the article. There are other sections within this parent article that could be reduced to accommodate it. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery Foreign Policy and Neutrality

Washington while President took sides with the French when he funded the slave owners to put down a slave rebellion in Haiti, a French colony. If Washington is to be lauded about his neutrality this should be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to where you found this? Thanks. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred N. Hunt (1988), Haiti's Influence on Antebellum America: Slumbering Volcano in the Caribbean, pages 30, 31. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what is being requested here. The article makes quite clear that he was a slaveowner all his life: George_Washington#Washington_and_slavery. That section appears to be fair, neutral and informative. And if people want more detail the fuller article is linked: George Washington and slavery. The sources used for that article appear to be ones specifically about his association with slavery. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to President Washington's foreign policy in terms of being neutral with other nations that he is popular known for, such as in his farewell address in 1796 where he claims "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing..." This contradicts his presidency giving weapons and money to the French in Haiti. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. So you feel the George_Washington#Foreign_affairs section needs attention? That does raise the question of what information belongs in this article and what belongs in Presidency_of_George_Washington#Foreign_affairs, and is making me aware that I should be looking at all the sub-articles to ensure that what is here is a fair and accurate concise summary of the sub-articles as per WP:Summary style.

I've looked at the text you quote in context in the book, and the situation is rather complex. The Taking a global position section in Presidency of George Washington does go into some detail of the situation regarding America's relationship with France, and Washington's attitude toward that, and is quite helpful. Again you have raised an important point about the relationship between this parent article and the sub-articles, and presenting a balanced summary of the information already contained within those sub-articles. The more I look into this, the more I am thinking that the "coverage" aspect of the GA criteria is going to be crucial to getting this article listed as a GA. SilkTork *^YES! 08:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Image Self-image

Washington was careful to protect his image and the portraits painted of him are not accurate. This was revealed on History Channels show "Death Masks". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of this information is unclear. The linked source is an advert for the programme rather than the programme itself, and so is unhelpful. A quick search revealed no other reliable sources talking about this issue. I suggest that more research is done on the matter before including the information, and then consider if such information should appear in the lead. It appears on the surface to be rather dubious and trivial data - more sources are needed to convince the general reader that this information is relevant and accurate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relavence has to do with Washington's self-image; how he viewed himself and how he wanted others to view him. According to John Ferling, Washington wanted to be remembered as being a military leader who had "resolution, industry, courage, daring, and resourcefulness" [Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, page 301]. I do not have the transcripts of the show Death Masks, and it is not an advertizement for the show, however, the show had mentioned that Washington's own image was important to himself and that he wanted in his portraits to look strong for his own legacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes - self-image rather than portrait image - that makes sense. That is already mentioned briefly in the article and it does seem to be a potentially crucial aspect of his character. Plenty of sources do mention it - [1], [2], [3], enough for there to be serious consideration given to a section in the article on Washington's character/personality, in which information from reliable sources on his own self-image and his attitudes towards other people could be placed. I am getting a firm sense that Washington's character is significant enough to warrant more detail than is currently in the article. O dear goody - more work to do! SilkTork *^YES! 08:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that people are unclear as to how to develop the lead, in particular in regard to including a biographical background. Here are FA and GA articles on prominent political leaders - note that the second paragraph in each gives a brief biography. Barack Obama; Ronald Reagan; Neville Chamberlain; George H. W. Bush; George W. Bush; Margaret Thatcher. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone has beaten me to it and done a good job at that, there was some repetition (which has been fixed) and and bit of grammatical nonsense in the lead's second paragraph (also fixed), I also split the second paragraph into 2 individual paragraphs since it was very long. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 22:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the Early life section could do with an overhaul. It may be worth looking at Early life of George Washington and considering merging some or all of that material back into this one. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that, thanks Silk. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 22:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most of that information is already listed in the main article itself. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the point of the small "early life" article. I'll go ahead and merge it if that's alright. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead by all means :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes helpful to look back at the editing history of an article, because articles can decline as well as improve. While not perfect (the language is sometimes flowery and POV), there is much to admire in this version from 2006, and in a number of respects it is actually better than the present article. The Lead is much more comprehensive and logical; there is better detail of the early life (we learn of his father's death and that he acquired part of the family estate. Comparing the present version with the 2006 one we can also see that it is worth giving serious consideration to the organisation of the current article, and deciding what information to include and what to exclude, and what sections to have to organise the material. Questionable sections include: "Militia versus regular army", "Interment and new tomb", "U.S. postage issues", and "Freemasonry". I understand that there has been at least one book written on Washington's involvement in Freemasonry so it would be worth having a discussion on how best to integrate that information into the article, though a distinct section may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to his involvement with that organisation - he was also a fire-fighter in the Friendship Veterans Fire Engine Company which - appropriately - is not mentioned because there has to be some care taken with how much information we include and what importance we give to that information.

The more I look into this article the more I am thinking that it is going to take some considerable thought, time, research, discussion and editing to get "coverage" right. Be useful to get more people involved, and to draw up a possible structure for the article with material/sections that people feel should be in the article, and which should not. SilkTork *^YES! 09:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article needs to have balance in terms of all aspects of Washington's life history. Washington had many good character traits such as leadership and honesty that should be in the article. However, a balanced view will show Washington as he really was, if that is possible, his rigid perfectionism, his involvment with land speculation with the Ohio Company that affected Native Americans, and his involvment in the Haitian rebellion in 1795 as President, an issue related to slavery. He had tried to secretly kidnap Oney Judge in order to return his wife's slave. He may have had a slave child named West Ford with a slave named Venus. These issues should be mentioned, not to denegrate Washington's character, but just to have added historical signifigance to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added Washington's involvement with the Haitian rebellion. I can attempt to fuse the other above issues mentioned into the article without any major changes to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to have alternative views both in the article and about the article. The question of how much weight they ought to be given can always be debated - the important thing at this stage is to voice those views, and - yes - try them out in the article. If you put something in the article, or here on the talkpage to discuss, at least then I and others are aware of those issues and can research them and either support their inclusion or debate removing them. I haven't researched deeply into Washington, and I'm still waiting for the books I've ordered, but already I've picked up a sense of Washington's moral certainty, a quality much admired in Washington's time, but rather less so in these more complex times. Care should, of course, be taken to be aware that views do change, and that minority views are treated as minority views and not accorded the same space or status as the conventional views. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on Washington's commercial interests in Ohio during the Revolutionary War. This adds balance to the article without being judgemental or POV, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on Washington's religious views. Washington believed that Providence was active in human events, although he never personalized his own faith. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I work on this, the clearer it is becoming that the current article is unreliable, and this will entail a rigorous rebuild of the whole thing, something that is beyond the scope of a standard GA Review. The French and Indian War section omitted to mention that Washington was involved in initiating [an action regarded as the first hostility leading to the global] Seven Years' War - that is rather important information, and should be included in the lead as well. And I've just checked the quote in the lead about George III saying: "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." He didn't, he said: "the greatest character of the age".[4] I am still keen to progress the article as long as my enthusiasm lasts, though I am becoming daunted at the size of the task as there is such a lot of background reading to be done, and nothing can be taken for granted in the article. Involvement from others would be much appreciated. I think it is possible to bring this to GA status, though it would help if people could take responsibility for various sections, easing the overall load considerably. SilkTork *^YES! 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty finding any word of Major Washington's involvement in initiating the war here. I would think this is were it would be written more so than on his biography page. Why is this? Could it be a lack of validity? I would be interested to see the sources for this notion. Involvement in the beginning of a war does not necessarily mean he started it, ordered it or any other level of such authority --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already updated the section with a source - George_Washington#French_and_Indian_War_.28Seven_Years_War.29_.281754.E2.80.931758.29 when I wrote the above. This is not an area I am an expert in, and so I am researching as I go along, and what I read indicated that Washington's engagement was the initial conflict leading to the Seven Years War - [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. It is likely my reading of the sources is incorrect, and there are alternative sources which give fuller details, so please update the section as appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first source (Canadian), which could lead you to believe Washington initiated something, lacked any supporting sources. The last three clearly show that Washington was under orders from the governor to carry out his missions. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the article wording or my wording above, because what I put in the article is: "This action is regarded as the first hostility leading to the global Seven Years' War". The sources support this. If you are unsure about the implications of the use of the phrase "Washington was involved in initiating" on this talkpage, I've refactored it to read "Washington was involved in an action regarded as the first hostility leading to the global Seven Years' War". Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I nominated George Washington for GA the Seven Years War wasn't an issue, that part of the article had sufficient information to my recollection. I can't be very active in editing the article per recommendations given but I'll try. I'll help out where I can but school is consuming my time on Wikipedia. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 22:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting any one individual to do the work. I feel that given the huge and complex nature of this topic the more people involved the better. I have just taken delivery of Volume 5 of Freeman's six volume biography. It's over 500 pages long on just the years 1778-1783! Way too much detail, and I doubt if I'll be making much use of it - but it does give some idea of the scope of the task. While this article is not meant to be comprehensive, I feel a fair approximation of the major points in his life should be covered, while the minor points should be placed in sub-articles. Our difficulty is deciding on what is significant and what is trivial, and then deciding how much attention should be given to the points that do make it into the article. My feeling is that dubious speculation about a possible child belongs in a sub-article, while a helpful summary of Washington's decisions leading to success at Yorktown - an event considered to be Washington's greatest military achievement, and one that had huge global implications - belongs here, and so the current mention of Yorktown should be expanded. However, those are my individual views, and it would be good to have a fuller and ongoing discussion. It would be useful to have someone with some knowledge of Washington to pitch in and suggest an appropriate overview of his life. SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect of Washington's life that would be good to look into was when he actually decided to break away from Britain. He was born a British citizen, but became the first American President under the U.S. Constitution. What exactly caused him to make the break? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done enough background reading now to fail this as regards broad coverage. The three main areas that need to be addressed for the article to meet the GA criteria are:

• References. I have put in some ((fact)) tags to show the sort of statements that need sourcing. The tagging is selective rather than exhaustive, but does give a vivid impression of the nature of the problem. It is always easier to cite when doing the research. When statements/opinions/facts are read in texts and then placed in an article without making reference to the text and page(s) it does make it harder for others to find the right source later. The statement, for example, that "Washington practically speaking was a Deist " is not what turns up when doing a google book search for "Washington Deist" - it appears that sources are mainly saying that he was NOT a diest - though the suggestion that he was appears to have arisen around 1831.
• Lead. The lead is not an adequate summary of the complex life of this man. And it is unlikely to be one until the aspects of broad coverage have been appropriately dealt with.
• Broad coverage. Much has been written about Washington. His personal life, his impact on world affairs, and his views, political and otherwise. Much has been speculated about him. There are rumours, myths and gossip. During this review I have been asked to look into the speculation regarding his attitude toward slavery and blacks, his fathering of a child, and his exploitation of land belonging to native Americans. His motives in regard to a number of matters have been questioned. There is much material to sort through, and it requires a firm grip on this article to present appropriate and neutral coverage of the man. I strongly urge contributors to coordinate on structuring this article and deciding what material goes in, and what doesn't. The random placing of unsourced titbits has resulted in a large and impressive looking article that sadly doesn't do justice to either the man or Wikipedia. Sometimes an article may drift without an individual or body of people to care for it. The article has not always positively progressed - some of the older versions were arguably better than the version at the start of the review.

I have considered keeping the review open in order to coordinate improvements to the article, though - being based in the UK - I don't have access to many books on Washington, so I am not best suited to the task. I will close the review as a fail, though will keep the article on my watchlist and try to get involved as much as possible in building the article. SilkTork *^YES! 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi, just noticed this fail. Another editor and I are trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to GA or FA. We're getting mildly close. Anyways, take a look at that if you wan't to see where this article should be headed (250+ refs, for one thing). Basically, it has a long, long way to go. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of cites is not a GA criteria. Some articles can and have passed GA with few - but appropriate - cites. However, all articles benefit from having good sourcing. And it helps even more if links can be made to online text sources such as are provided by Google Books. SilkTork *^YES! 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but people usually look for a certain amount of cites (as you pointed out with your citation needed tags), and for an important person like GW, the number of them adds up quick. I used to do Gbook links, but after a while they clutter up the page. The Lincoln pages non readable text could double with Gbook links! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]