Talk:George Washington/Archive 19

Withdrawing the nomination?
In the last several months much work has been done with the citations, source, listings etc, but after years of editors adding all types of cites, url addresses, templates, etc, too often just stuck in the text, we still have a rather mixed assortment of cites and sources to deal with. Since there doesn't seem to be much concern (past or present) about fixing this problem, I'm seriously considering withdrawing the nomination, as it will take quite awhile for one editor to wade though this monumental mess and replace web site sources with published sources, fix citation formats/conventions, etc. e.g. We spent more than a month obsessing and bickering about a flag in some rarely viewed painting, while very few editors, apparently, were (and are) concerned about taking on the truly difficult tasks. The article received sharp criticism about web site sources, esp. This is the biggest issue, not grammar tweaks and adding or removing content. See review. Disappointed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very discouraged atm specifically @ the nom and in general @ WP-practices but will take up helping to work through the citations at a later date. Sadly, you are probably right about withdrawing it for the time-being. Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read through the review. There has been opposition for FA. What specifically needs to be fixed ? One sentence could not be understood, and then there were references issues. Is this article too large ? All that should be known is what needs to be fixed to get George Washington to FA. The personal life section can be its own article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal life is a corner-stone topic to any biography and belongs in the Washington  'biography'  more than any other article. Once again, this article should be such that someone can make a printout of it and be able to read it without having it depend on other articles to get a basic understanding of Washington's life. Please read the review for the pressing issues. Citations and sources are the major hurdle here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, Brianboultain said, "...When this was peer-reviewed six years ago it had 9,500 words; it now has over 16,000, so a great deal of unreviewed text has been added. I wondering, too, why an article with so many subarticles (some extremely lengthy) needs to be this long? There seems to be plenty of scope for summarising and eliminating unimportant detail, to get this article down to a more reasonable length..." There seemed to be an issue with the length of the article, that is why I mentioned the Personal life section. I understand that citing and souring are a major issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Final days section can be reduced because of the Post-presidency of George Washington article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many major details were missing since the GA review, and you have added more content than the average editor, by far. Btw, thank you for that. This article is no longer than the Ulysses S. Grant featured article. There is a dedicated article for virtually all aspects of Washington's life, including ones for the Revolution, specific battles, presidency, slavery, etc, etc. So why don't we just turn this article into a glorified table of contents for other articles with just a few sentences for each topic? Again, this main, central, article, a biography, should be treated as a stand alone article not dependent on other articles for a reader to get a basic and comprehensive, summary of Washington's life. We can't ignore FA criteria to appease someone's concern about a guideline. Anyway, if  you want to help fix the numerous specific issues that a reviewer took the time to outline for us that would be a big help. Right now we should decide if withdrawing the nomination is the right thing to do at this time. If we're going to spend time debating other issues, while ignoring the huge citation and source problem, we may as well. If otoh we're going to tackle this tough job head on perhaps it won't be necessary. Some reviews take more than a month. The review is only a couple of days in progress, and already many of the issues, outlined in Review Talk, have been fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We need the review to find out what is good and what needs to be changed. What content to do the reviewers want to keep or delete ? Yes. Citing and sourcing are important but what about the article ? We need specifics. There is no Personal life section in Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are no requirements for an editor to review a FA nomination, which is why I have never nominated all the articles I've created. As much as I love Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say they don't run a very tight ship in many respects. My concern is with the readers. I opted to nominate this article because that is what many editors have hoped for. As far as I'm concerned some of the 'reviewers' made only cursory and drive by generic criticisms only hours after the nomination, and still, seem like they can't be bothered with specifics. Fine. At this point I have fixed the majority of specific issues that user Squeamish Ossifrage has taken much time and effort to outline for us. Thus far, his in depth review trumps all. Back to work.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the Personal life section should be incorporated into the article and the Final days section should be trimmed down. I would also try to make all references "harv" format. It looks like FA review for George Washington has been shelved. Other than sourcing or referencing, we really don't know where to go from here. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In spite of some cursory reviews and hasty comments, I have a more optimistic outlook. Thanks to our efforts, this article is rich with comprehensive information, while we've kept the prose in summary form and under 100k. However, since the FA editor in charge of nominations (Ian Rose) has opted to close out the nomination we can only fall back and regroup. Several announcements were made about going forward with the nomination. Not one editor said the article wasn't ready. In the future we need to hear specific criticisms, not drive by and generic assessments from reviewers who haven't really gone past the realm of mere grammar style and digested the actual narrative. On the positive side, one reviewer gave a very detailed and in depth review, which resulted in many sourcing and citation errors, etc, getting fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There was no actual content review of the article, so how can the review be shut down ? I was going to ask the reviewers for more content criticism, but the review was shut down, and I am not really sure why the review was shut down so hastily, without explanation, before any content review. The citing and sourcing "errors" can be cleaned up. That is all good, but the goal is to get George Washington on front page of Wikipidia. It seems we are back to square one. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seemed rather hasty to me as well, but seemed like it was going to be a WP:SNOW situation. Would have been nice to get some more content feedback... Shearonink (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As an aside to the length and what to possibly trim etc... If there is a problem with the subject itself it's that there is so much lingering hagiography in sources and in people's memories. People sort of know about the "cherry tree", they know a little something about his false-teeth, they remember he commanded the American army in the Revolution (and was a spymaster because of the TV show "Turn: Washington's Spies") and so on... and they will turn to this page to find out more about all those subjects. I mean, other than Lincoln & Washington & then in the 20th Century JFK & FDR does the general public know much about any of the other American Presidents' childhoods or are they interested in their death/final days or their love-lifes etc? We don't have the depth of coverage on other Presidents (Martin Van Buren anyone?) the way we do on Washington - there just isn't that intense an interest in Andrew Johnson's childhood or Franklin Pierce's love-life, we don't have legends & myths about most US Presidents the way we do about Washington. From the general comments on the nom (other than Squeamish's detailed cite review) most of the other comments seemed to be about readability and the dense-ness of prose. After all the cites are put into alignment with the Harvard stars, I would suggest we concentrate on working through the prose for readability. I don't think the article should/must necessarily be trimmed for length - after all, there are many other articles that are even larger, even being above 200kb in size. Besides, "Personal life" contains 1183 words & "Final days" contains 1023 words - even if those two sections were completely excised the article would still log in at around 13,500 words... Shearonink (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All the things you mentioned Shearonick were what was suppose to be for the review. Does the article need to be trimmed ? Yes, then where ? Where are the readablity/understandability concerns ? Where are the neutrality concerns ? Only one readability/understandability concerns mentioned in the review. Should there me more on slavery ? These were all the concerns I had expected to be addressed. The size of the article maybe a factor. I mentioned incorporating the Personal life section into the article, not deleting it. Final days was to be trimmed, not deleted. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with you Cmguy that I thought there would be specific concerns delineated so they could then be addressed/corrected (I do very much appreciate Squeamish's detailed cite-review). And I didn't intend to imply you were suggesting those sections be deleted, my point is that even *if* they were completely removed the article would still have 13.5K words and someone might say that was too long as well... That's all. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Graham Beards, who was a reviewer, has fixed references in the article. That is good. It is good that Shearonink noted all the references that need to be fixed. Thanks. But, George Washington needs to get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out several times, it was user Squeamish Ossifrage's review that outlined several dozen citation and sourcing issues, most of which which were promptly fixed in the hope that we could get over that hurdle and address any other specific issues. Yes, the nomination was oddly shut down rather quickly without any other specific issues being aired. I'm sorry to say, but as we just saw first hand, FA nominations are too often a pot luck effort, depending on who happens to be driving by at the time, and I'm not the only editor has witnessed this sort of thing.  Once again, page length is a guideline, and exceptions are allowed. Washington, like Jefferson and Grant, are exceptional figures in US history and warrant an above average sized article. As soon as some editors come to terms with that we eliminate most of the BS and bickering. Once again there are also guidelines that maintain that we don't remove context for the sake of page length alone.  A comforting thought is that it's only a few  editors who hold FA in such high regard — the readers could care less, assuming they even notice the little gold star in the corner. This article will continue to get aprox 10,000 views a day without the little star. Having said that, I will work to get the article up to FA status, so long as we don't compromise the comprehensiveness of the narrative, and make it a lesser priority than some gold star. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re:article length - Special:LongPages has some interesting reading. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but these are all lists, not narratives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to do some studying up on the Featured article Barack Obama to see how that FA was accomplished - it's in the Top 500 in terms of size, clocking in at #308/‎[335,800 bytes]. Shearonink (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the Personal life section would not be deleted, rather incorporated into the article in possibly different sections. The Final days section could be reduced, not deleted. Washington's last days were made complicated by his three doctors. This has been addressed in the Post-presidency of George Washington article. Washington had to suffer for probably 38 hours. Reduction is not deletion. I think something needs to change before another FA nomination. Yes. Neutrality ? Content ? Clarification ? for the full article would need to be addressed. Not just mentioning one sentence phrasing. For a "hit and miss" we struck out. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're introducing more major changes, and the usual lengthy and incessant debate that would go with it, before we've even gotten the cites and sourcing straightened out completely, and still seem to be obsessed with page length -- this after all the content you've added in the last several months.  We are at 97k prose, and we agreed that 100k was the limit, just as we did successfully with the Ulysses S. Grant article. If a reviewer tries to make an issue out of page length  alone it is our responsibility to explain the matter. As a reasonable adult, there's no reason why they would challenge us on that issue, given the situation here. Once again, dedicated articles are for in depth coverage. This doesn't get us out of the responsibility of providing summary and comprehensive coverage for this article, per FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The FAC
I understand the disappointment felt by the editors of this article. I do not usually respond to personal criticism of my FAC reviews but in this case I feel that further explanation might be helpful. I was the FAC delegate for several years and I can spot candidates that are unlikely to pass. Perhaps the nominator needs to be reminded that WP:FAC is not WP:PR and that reviewers at FAC  are not obliged to list all the problems that they see in the candidates. In fact, just one established reviewer's suggesting the withdrawal of a premature nomination is sufficient for one of the FAC coordinators to close the FAC. I also use a script to identify citation formatting errors and have fixed most, but three of which remain (82, 87 and 161): I also fixed the many problems with the dashes, which the nominator claims to have done. Two other reviewers agreed with my comments regarding the prose, which were not "drive by" but carefully considered. FAC is totally dependant on reviewers who give their time to help the coordinators come to their decisions. To discredit reviewers, both here and on other pages, is rude. If it was felt that my criticisms were unqualified, it would have been more to polite to have addressed me directly. At the moment I think you are guilty of shooting the messenger. Graham Beards (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ferling 2010, p. 100; Fitzpatrick 1904, p. 11. Harv error: link from CITEREFFitzpatrick1904 doesn't point to any citation.
 * Rasmussen 1999, p. 294; Fitzpatrick 1936, p. 514. Harv error: link from CITEREFRasmussen1999 doesn't point to any citation.
 * Mann 2005, p. 38; Lancaster Plumb, p. 254; 1985. Harv error: link from CITEREFLancasterPlumb doesn't point to any citation.
 * 82/Fitzpatrick1904 is supposed to point to the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789: 1774 etc. That ref has gotten somewhat mangled (I think)...looking into it now. Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah....I see. There's some kind of a technical issue with having multiple authors or editors in a harvard cite...I'll figure one out and the rest will fall into line... Shearonink (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed - 82. Shearonink (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed - 87. Shearonink (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed - 161.Shearonink (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * — Thank you for your comments, and your years of reviewing, btw. It was best that reviewers were addressed collectively rather than to single anyone out by name. The criticism was not just aimed at the former review, but overall. In any case, citations and sourcing issues aside, it would have been helpful if specific issues were addressed, other than 'page length'. Much reading, research, comparing one source with another, and much debate and consideration has gone into the writing of this article, so I was really spun when I read that some of the prose was "...completely intelligible", which, imo, was an overkill and inappropriate criticism, seemingly made in haste, considering. Hence my "drive by" comment. Several announcements were made about going ahead with the nomination, yet there were no objections. Having said that, please accept my apologies for my less than friendly comments. We'll  continue to work to get the article to FA status. As much as I can live with or without the gold star, it is the hope of many editors around here, and simply can't ignore their aspirations, and will do what is necessary to reach this goal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the only issues referencing and sourcing ? Does the narration need improvement ? Is the article neutral ? Is the article too long ? I appreciate everyone who reviewed the article. Specific issues would be helpful. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Three people reviewed the prose: Graham Beard, Brian Boulton, and auntieruth. All three said the quality of the prose needs to be improved. Brain said the article is too long, and auntieruth agreed with them. So, yes, the narrations needs improvement; it should be more concise.
 * Gwillhickers, it would be helpful if you were less defensive and more receptive of constructive criticism. Even in your apology you're still defending your opinion.
 * Takeaway: To get to FA, the writing needs to be trimmed and rendered more coherent and lucid. YoPienso (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (??) Of course I defend my opinion. Everyone does if they believe what they are saying. Citation and sourcing issues aside, at least two editors said the narrative was FA worthy. We need specific criticisms, otherwise I will continue to be skeptical of the apparent notion that the entire article is such that it has to be trimmed, rewritten, etc. If no one can cite specific issues, that clearly show need of correction and/or improvement, we are only going around in the same circle. FA criteria maintains that the prose be well written, in context, and engaging. The idea of "concise" seems to take us in the opposite direction. Criticisms should point at obvious errors in citation/sourcing, and in the narrative, in terms of incorrect dates, names and places, etc. Don't want to get into one of these debates were we argue about at which point a shade of gray becomes dark, or what is "lucid" and what isn't. Once again, we need specific criticisms aimed at obvious errors. If we can edit a paragraph with fewer words while keeping the context in tact I'll have no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion...
How's this for a long-term project....I am reading through the entire article, each and every section and then going back and also taking a look at the refs for those sections. Sometimes working on an article we can't see the forest for the trees... so maybe all interested editors who have worked on this article could maybe put down their pens and simply read through the entire article from start to finish, as if they were readers coming upon the material for the first time. Perhaps the issues others are finding with the article will become clearer to those of us who have edited the article.

That being said, I personally can find no issues in the prose in section 1 and subsection 1.1. I am going to work through the individual refs in that section to make sure - so far as I possibly can - that the refs are pointing to where they are supposed to. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a worthy effort. No one is saying there is no room for improvement. Even works that get the Pulitzer Prize have room for improvement. See my comments above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems there are two goals: improve the narration and reduce the article's readable prose. We only have one specific example of where the prose should be improved. What area(s) of the article needs to be reduced ? What other area(s) of the article are difficult to read ? I suppose the whole article needs to be improved. Coemgenus is a good editor. Maybe Coemgenus could make some suggestions. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We need more than suppositions. Also, we need to consider what may be missing from the article that needs to be added. Improvement is a two way street. Once again, specific issues need to be addressed, assuming there are any. If specific and real issues can be brought to the table, I'll be the first to help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is one thing I would change without changing any narration. It is the article set up. The narration of the article is broken up. I tried to fix this but the edits were reverted. Personal life and Slavery sections should be after the Historical reputation and legacy sections. This would streamline the article look. Is everything set in stone? Can things be changed ? Something has to change to get George Washington to FA. I think this would be a good icebreaker. I would also rely more on Chernow (2010) biography Washington A Life for article content. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's better to leave that as it is. His personal life clearly transpired during his lifetime, while his historical reputation and legacy logically came afterwards. Slavery was during his lifetime, and needs a separate section. It's well to put it toward the end of his life since readers will examine it from a 21st-century viewpoint. YoPienso (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding prose: I've just edited the first paragraph of the lead for style. I think this is the kind of thing the reviewers said needed to be done. They couldn't give specifics for a general problem. You might ask them if they think my edit is an improvement and if they think it is up to FA standards. YoPienso (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ringing assertions in the lead
I'm not sure all this is true: ''Washington's strategy, field command, development of the army, and alliance with the French all combined to defeat British forces in every theater, climaxing with the allied victory at the Siege of Yorktown. Historians attribute his success to his mastery of military command on the job, and his respect for civilian control of the military through coordination with congressional and state officials.'' Washington lost more battles than he won, and provisioned his troops when Congress didn't. YoPienso (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The term "alliance with France" could be changed to "miltary aid of the French Army and Navy". There would be no U.S.A. without the French involvement in the war. The British had the upper hand especially during 1780, the year Arnold defected. Arnold may have done more damage to the American cause than historians like to admit. These are just my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly not. Our article on Benedict Arnold notes that Arnold offered some sound strategy proposals to the British side in 1781, but most of them were ignored by his superiors Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis and Henry Clinton. (Arnold predicted some of Washington's next moves, they did not). Arnold's last victory in the Battle of Groton Heights (1781) was actually considered detrimental to the British cause since it resulted in high casualties: "Several leaders of the attacking British force were killed or seriously wounded, but the British eventually breached the fort and the Americans surrendered—whereupon the British entered the fort and massacred the defenders. However, the high level of British casualties in the overall expedition against Groton and New London led to criticism of Arnold by some of his superiors."

"Benedict Arnold later issued a report stating that 48 British soldiers were killed and 145 wounded. General Clinton praised Arnold for his "spirited conduct", but also complained about the high casualty rate; about 25 percent of the troops sent against Fort Griswold were killed or wounded. One British observer wrote that it had been like "a Bunker Hill expedition", and many British soldiers blamed Arnold for the events at Fort Griswold, even though he had not been in a position to prevent the slaughter. Arnold next proposed a raiding expedition against Philadelphia, but the surrender of General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown in late October ended that idea."

Arnold then damaged his own military career through a political blunder. He sided with the Tories and with George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville in an attempt to prolong the war against the Thirteen Colonies, right before Germain was forced to retire from office and the anti-war Whigs rose to power. Arnold was denied any active post in both the British Army and the East India Company, retaining the meager salary of an officer in "non-wartime service" (no actual duties). Dimadick (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Arnold had direct communication with Clinton through André, the spymaster. 1780 was a very successuful year for the British. After Arnold was booted the war turned better for the Americans. Arnold relayed everything to Clinton what Washington was going to do, especially his relay that Washington could not defend the South, and the British took advantage of this. The French military aided Washington in defeating the British in the South. Don't forget West Point. Had he succeeded that would have been disasterous for Washington. Again. These are just my opinions. Not meant to go into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For 2 years, 4 months, 14 days Arnold decieved Washington and had supplied the British with devastating information: 05-10-1778 to 09-23-1780. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Very true. — Getting back to Yopienso's concern, there's nothing inaccurate or overstated in the sentence in question. America was indeed allied with France. The fact that they sent ships, men, supplies, not to mention people like Lafayette who had a close friendship with Washington, more than substantiates the idea that America had an alliance with France during the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If Washington lost more battles than he won, giving provisions to his troops when Congress failed to do so, this needs to be stated, but we'll need a source. Such a statement should also be made in context. i.e.Did Washington lose more major battles than he won, or just battles overall? Obviously, counting 'battles won' is not the final consideration -- overall strategy and winning the war is. Ironically the wealthy Benedict Arnold, before he turned color, often used his own money to supply his troops. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "the idea that America had an alliance with France during the war" An understatement. The "alliance" translates to the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), with the British and French fighting against each other in the English Channel, the Atlantic Ocean, the West Indies, North America, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Balearic Islands, and the East Indies. Part of the reasons that the British had to keep diverting resources away from the North American front, was that there were other war fronts open. Besides the Anglo-French War, we have Spain and the American Revolutionary War (1779-1783), the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-1784), and the Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784), because the Spanish, the Dutch, and the Kingdom of Mysore were French allies at the time. On the other hand we have the First League of Armed Neutrality (1780-1783), nominally neutral countries engaging in limited naval conflict with the Royal Navy in attempts to break the British blockade: the Russian Empire, Denmark–Norway, Sweden, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdom of Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, the Kingdom of Sicily, and the Kingdom of Naples. Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation
I'm copying this from my talk page where Shearonink posted it:

In this edit you changed a variety of quotation marks usage. Some of your changes, so far as I can tell, are in error - at least according to the Chicago Manual of Style and commonly-accepted grammar & punctuation practices. If I am referring to someone's title, and the title is rendered as "Mr President", then the trailing punctuation - the period, the comma, etc. - is outside the title as it is set off with the quotation marks. If I am writing down a conversation and it is.... She said "Well, I want my sandwich." then the punctuation is part of the conversation...the commas, the periods....and the marks go outside the trailing punctuation. If I am not explaining this very well, then maybe take a look at Quotation marks in English. Anyway, appreciate all your work on the article, seems like it's been a hard slog lately.... I think those changes should be changed back, at least the ones concerned with a title. For example:
 * His incumbency established many precedents still in use today, such as the Cabinet system, the inaugural address, and the title "Mr. President."

should be
 * His incumbency established many precedents still in use today, such as the Cabinet system, the inaugural address, and the title "Mr. President".

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted my changes. I see Wikipedia is requiring British punctuation even when American-style spelling is used.  Here's the MOS, using "logical quotation" style. For commas, scroll up.
 * I teach English grades 7-12 and know what is still the standard in the USA. That article cites to five reputable sources. A few years ago I found this page by SlimVirgin and have followed it, not realizing it was just a page she put up and doesn't comport with the MOS.
 * I think you're mistaken about what the CMOS says, but in fact, I can't access it. I have a 7th-edition Turabian, though, that says "A final comma or period nearly always precedes a closing quotation mark, whether it is part of the quoted matter or not." It gives a lone exception: "when single quotation marks are used to set off special terms in certain fields . . ." Ex.: Some contemporary theologians, who favored 'religionless Christianity', were proclaiming the 'death of God'. In any case, Wikipedia's MOS disregards the Chicago MOS.
 * Thanks for your work and thoughtfulness. YoPienso (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my two cents: I had always assumed that the only time a period is enclosed inside quotes is when that quote is a complete sentence. If the quoted and complete sentence occurs in the middle of the greater sentence the period is still used inside the quote, as well as at the end of the overall sentence. e.g.
 * In her surprise she said, "You have been most generous." keeping the acknowledgement simple.
 * Is this correct? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that wasn't the question. Here's what the leading academic authority for English writing in the US says: (YoPienso (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC))
 * This is an article about the MLA -- nothing there about punctuation, etc. In any case, you answered the question that concerns me. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The MLA Handbook notes, “By convention, commas and periods that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks” (88). Thus, in the following sentence, the comma is placed after taught:

“You’ve got to be carefully taught,” wrote Oscar Hammerstein II.

The rule is the same for a list of titles:

Julio Cortázar wrote many short stories, including “La noche boca arriba,” “Casa tomada,” and “Babas del diablo.”

It is also the same for instances where a title within a title comes at the end of a sentence:

A new approach to Flannery O’Connor’s short story can be found in the essay “The Uncanny Theology of ‘A Good Man Is Hard to Find.’”

This placement is traditional in the United States. William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, writing in 1959, noted that “[t]ypographical usage dictates the comma be inside the marks, though logically it seems not to belong there” (36).

Neutral point of view
This article comes across as an accolade to a racist. He was an "owner" of enslaved people. He condoned torture (by whipping), and made a fortune from slavery. Certainly, he was a founder, but his opposition to the British  had nothing at all to do with ethics. Sorry, and I know this is not a forum, but we can do better.Graham Beards (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The slavery section is controversial, and it should be neutral. I have been trying to get it neutral enough. The term "whippings" should be used in the article. Yes. We can do better. Washington made a fortune from slavery and land speculation. There is one catch with Washington, his 1799 abolition will. Washington may have had a conscious concerning slavery. In his will he freed all his slaves, after his wifes death, and gave them the right to remain in Virginia, not to be deported to some freedman's colony. His wife Martha freed his slaves in 1801. His money went into the care of taking care of his elderly freed slaves. Now this does not make up for the "whippings", the slavery, and profiteering. We should not "preach" to the reader, but rather just present the facts. How Washington felt is pure speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was ashamed an editor failed to accept your constructive criticism on the FAC and have urged him to reconsider. Ironically, I now find myself in the position of rejecting your criticism. I wholeheartedly agree the article isn't of a high enough quality to be designated a FA. I'm troubled by your approach here, however, on a subject you didn't mention on the FAC page: you assert, "This article comes across as an accolade to a racist."
 * I can't agree to writing this (or any) article from a presentist view. We may mention that some people today view Washington as a racist, because there is a trend in modern thought of applying that term in ways never imagined a few decades ago. Well and good, but Wikipedia follows current mainstream academic views. Ron Chernow, who represents the academic view, informed readers on p. 111 of his 2011 Pulitzer prize-winning biography, Washington: A Life, "However horrifying it seems to later generations, abominable behavior toward dark-skinned people was considered an acceptable way of life." On p. 6 he wrote, "George Washington entered a strictly hierarchical universe [...] As the economic basis of this undemocratic world, slavery was commonplace and unquestioned..." On p. 8, "Like her future husband, Martha Dandridge grew up in a world where slavery was taken for granted..."
 * While I'm utterly opposed to hagiographies, I can't agree to portray GW as a racist or a torturer. We should portray him in the context of the world in which he lived. This does a far greater service to our readers than a judgmental view applying 21st-century ideas to the actions of 18th-century people. Here are excerpts from an excellent essay, "Against Presentism," by Lynn Hunt:
 * "Who isn't [against presentism], you say? Hardly any "ism" these days has much of a scholarly following."
 * "Over time, modernity became the standard of judgment against which most of the past, even the Western past, could be found wanting."
 * "Presentism, at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior; the Greeks had slavery, even David Hume was a racist, and European women endorsed imperial ventures. Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards. This is not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view. It is to say that we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit in the Western (and now probably worldwide) historical discipline."
 * "Respect for the past, with its concomitant humility, curiosity, and even wonder . . . enables us to see beyond our present-day concerns backward and forward at the same time. YoPienso (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page and editors should have some leeway on their own opinions as long as those opinions stay in the article. Yes. We should avoid presentism, but we should also avoid apologetics for slavery too. Chernow's opinion of Washington and slavery is not set in stone just because he won the Pulitzer. Chernow's dark-skinned quote is a bit dated and a generalization of African people. There were plenty of abolitionsists, Methodists and Baptists, in Washington's times and in his will Washington rejected slavery. Readers are free to judge Washington in any manner desired. Wikipedia is to present Washington as neutral as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly we shouldn't draw from or refer only to Chernow! He's a good source, though, and a good example of modern mainstream scholarship. Please read his chapter "A Certain Species of Property" for an excellent example of even-handed narration that neither extols nor condemns. You're familiar with our deep bibliography.
 * Wrt "apologetics for slavery," I agree with Hunt: "Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior." Imho, the main narrative should be as neutral as humanly possible, avoiding either a judgmental or an apologetic tone.
 * A "Historical reputation" section is valuable to show what people thought of Washington in his day, soon after his death, during the 19th and 20th centuries, and today. The task here is to find a reputable modern scholar who calls GW a racist who tortured slaves. And if you find one, we have to see how the academy has received her or him. YoPienso (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Graham Beards is entitled to Graham Beards' view of Washington. The task is to get George Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The slavery section was basically the same in terms of neutrality when the article was a FAC, yet none of the reviewers tagged the article for neutrality. There was not even a hint of any "accolade to a racist" during the review. Overnight one of the former reviewers tagged the article, and then removed it. Why wasn't the article tagged during the review? Simply because time wasn't taken to really read the article?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of the above comments give us a clear reason why we need to present controversial issues in context. In the future, we should insist on reviewers who do not harbor such a flagrant bias and dislike against the subject. I was surprised to read GB's comments. In any case, no one denies that there's no improvements needed in any of the grammar, and the citations and sources are coming up to speed. It would be nice, btw, if as much attention was given to cites and sources (there are still a fair number that need attention) as is being given these highly opinionated issues. As for any apologetic tone, this seems to be aimed at anything that puts the issue of slavery in human context. Slavery was wrong, virtually everyone acknowledge that, but there were realities about simply releasing slaves, with no means of support, shelter, etc, into "freedom". As for "racism", everyone was a "racist", and favored their own kind and culture, which is largely true today, esp in the old world. So it's almost funny when some refer to Washington as  some freak of society in this regard. Washington, like everyone else, was a product of his time, where family and national preservation came first. With common place war, infant mortality, disease, and a cruel and unforgiving world, civil rights issues barely existed then. Still, some struggled with the idea of slavery regardless. Unfortunately too many modern day TV viewers don't get that. Having said that, we say what the sources say, like it or not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the record: I have read the whole article several times. There are still citation errors, which need to be fixed:

Wright 1987, p. 193. Harv error: link from CITEREFWright1987 doesn't point to any citation. Jump up^ Wright 1987, p. 27. Harv error: link from CITEREFWright1987 doesn't point to any citation. hernow Ferling; 2009. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernowFerling doesn't point to any citation. This article suffers from American historical amnesia, (Google it). American's have a view of history that is not shared by the world. (For example, they did not win WW2, for that we needed the  Russians and  English Enigma code breakers.) As for "presentism",  the history of  the USA is shallow; my house, from which I am writing this, is older than the USA. I would be ashamed to see a portrait of Washington on my money, and I suspect most African-Americans would agree with me. We have a saying in the the UK that Americans think $100 is lot of money whereas the British think a hundred miles is a long way away. Please stop idolising Washington; he was of his time, an astute militarian and politician. He was not a nice person. I do not like the way the article celebrates the man; his faults, which were many, need to be given equal weight. Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wright 1987 & Wright 1987 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you fix ref #194? I don't know how. It says "Chernow Ferling 2009" and goes to nothing. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Already done. "Chernow Ferling 2009" - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly! YoPienso (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've acknowledged citation issues more times than I care to count and have been working on them all along – and thanks so much for your revealing opinions. It's a little ironic that you were the one who initiated this section, entitled Neutral point of view. The "history of the USA is shallow"?? Really.. The American Revolution inspired revolutions around the world, starting with the French Revolution. Washington risked his very life, in many instances, (no big deal, huh?) to achieve independence from Britain. In many cases he suffered right along side his troops through harsh winters. He was fundamental in advancing a world premier government run by the people, not someone of "divine right". His ownership of slaves doesn't change these things one bit. We have an entire section on slavery, but you are welcomed to include any other "faults" that we may have overlooked, but I'm afraid this will require reading, time and effort on your part, and will also require citations from reliable sources. In any case, you obviously shouldn't have been a reviewer for this particular article. Where were these opinions when you made your initial review? We need neutral and objective assessments, not hostile and shortsighted views. Thanks for the experience.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope we are not here to argue the merits of monarchy/democracy or the "divine right of Kings", and we can concentrate on George Washington. I will agree with Graham Beards. Washington was not a "nice person". The article should not celebrate slavery either. The subject of slavery goes back to the founding of the colonies. I believe the British Kings, or Queens, or Lord Protectors permitted the colonists to own Indian and African slaves. Were there slaves in England under the Roman Britain ? Even Isaac Newton may have invested in the slave trade in the West Indies. Many questions can be asked. Probably everyone back then was involved in the slave trade somehow. Washington was different, at the end. He set all his slaves free in his will, on condition of his wifes death, who set his slaves free in 1801. Washington also allowed his slaves to stay in Virginia, not be shipped to some freedman's colonies. That suggests Washington thought blacks and whites could live together as free persons. Slavery was/is a cruel institution. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not here to discuss whether the "history of the USA is shallow" either, which is why divine right v democracy was mentioned. The section does not "celebrate" slavery. Where are you getting the notion that it does? Because we mention context? Also, most if not all the sources speak of Washington as a benevolent person, in spite of his faults. "Not a nice person"? If you really need other leaders to put Washington in a proper perspective start with Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Genghis Khan, Saddam Husein — leaders that committed crimes against humanity far worse than slavery in America. Some young minds never survived the 60's and late 20th century evidently.   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to begrudge anything: but this is a good article: Slavery in the British and French Caribbean British slavery ended in 1833. Slavery in America, except a punishiment for (a) crime(s), was abolished in 1865. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These articles are good: Slavery in Britain, Slavery in the colonial United States, and Slavery in the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Slavery was often times cruel, but more than often it was not. Fighting wars was ten times as cruel. Jefferson gives us a classic example of how slaves were well taken care of, worked no more than free farmers, allowed to raise their own chickens and produce, had Sundays, Christmas and Easter off, encouraged to attend church, and didn't do much in the late autumn and winter months, but were still well fed and provided for. Admittedly, Washington could have done better. In cities like Philadelphia, New York and Boston, Africans were taken in as house servants by mostly Christian families who detested slavery. These blacks were commonly referred to by other blacks as "house niggers". Abolitionist John Brown couldn't get a following of slaves because he couldn't convince them they would be better off following him. Most slaves didn't like slavery, (any more than dirt farmers didn't like their situation) but they weren't naive either. Activists and the 'friends of America' crowd don't want to tell you that part of the story for fear it will let a lot of hot air out of their socio-political balloons. Are we ready to get back to work and resume taking care of the real problems? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. We need to get concensus for George Washington to get FA. Graham Beards was one of the reviewers. "Slavery was often times cruel, but more than often it was not." does not help matters. Washington was not a "nice guy". He was a general and a plantation owner who drove the slaves to work. Whatever your views on slavery you have every right to have. But any personal views, including my own, on Washington and slavery should not hold up FA. Whipping slaves was the cruelty. Washington, for that matter, was the slaves King. The slaves had no rights, only privileges, at the mercy of their owners. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given his last tirade against Washington and America, GB is out of the picture as far as objective reviewing is concerned. He seems to forget that it was Britain that was among the first to introduce slaves to the colonies. It was British shipping that was once at the center of the slave trade, while it was Britain who sold arms to the Confederacy during the Civil War all the while they were enjoying the fruits of slavery with the cotton they so desperately needed for their textile industry. And wasn't Britain once a young country? I can't believe he slighted a country for being young. Otoh, you don't help the article with your apparent refusal to acknowledge more than a 60's flat-earth assessment of slavery. We say what the sources say. No one has "idolized" Washington in the article. The section does not "celebrate" slavery in the slavery section. Please get a handle on these notions. Washington sometimes had individual slaves whipped, but not in a frequency or in a manner you apparently would  have us believe, as such punishment was exceptional. Often the whippings were switching in the legs and hind quarters. Brutally whipping a slave to a bloody pulp for simply being idol would disable the slave from work, and of course create dissent among the other slaves and inspire more runaways big time. Think. There are very few accounts of such excess, let alone brutality. We need to keep presentist views out of the article and say what the sources say, which we've been doing all along. The sources say Washington frowned on excess. The only real problem is creating issues where none exist. Presentism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is citation and sourcing issues that still need attending to. I've noticed good work is being done on some of the grammar and wording, while the context remains intact. We should also look for any errors in dates, names and places that may exist — it's a big article. You might not know it from some of the talk flying around here, but we have made giant steps forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For the sake of compromise I would add keeping both presentism and apologetics out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Insert : — Facts are neither presentist or apologetic, while these ideas do not, and have not, existed in the article. Most modern day assessments of slavery tend to be presentist, so we need to be careful. Mentioning that some slaves were whipped on occasion  tends to overshadow the big picture, and invokes images of slaves being kept in chains, wearing rags, fed slop and routinely whipped as they went along in the field. Even to this day, many young and naive people think everyone in the south had two slaves chained up in their garage, where in reality only a tiny fraction of the population owned slaves. As we've seen here, the 'Friends of America' crowd have and continue to use such images to slight the American government and keep the races divided against themselves, just as the British attempted to do during the Revolution. Evidently, that mindset still lurks among us today. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"In his will he freed all his slaves" Isn't the proper term manumission?: "the act of an owner freeing his or her slaves. Different approaches developed, each specific to the time and place of a particular society. Jamaican historian Verene Shepherd states that the most widely used term is gratuitous manumission, "the conferment of freedom on the enslaved by enslavers before the end of the slave system". ... The motivations for manumission were complex and varied. Firstly, it may present itself as a sentimental and benevolent gesture. One typical scenario was the freeing in the master's will of a devoted servant after long years of service. A trusted bailiff might be manumitted as a gesture of gratitude. For those working as agricultural laborers or in workshops, there was little likelihood of being so noticed." Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"With common place war, infant mortality, disease, and a cruel and unforgiving world" In these aspects, our world has not changed much since the 18th century. we have List of wars 1500–1799, List of wars 1800–1899, List of wars 1900–1944, List of wars 1945–1989, List of wars 1990–2002, List of wars 2003–2010, and List of wars 2011–present to explain how the wars never really cease. Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"I do not like the way the article celebrates the man; his faults, which were many, need to be given equal weight." This is Wikipedia. You think an article and its sources are one-sided or unbalanced? Your job is to fix it with additional perspectives and additional sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I understand about English Wikipedia is that it is shared by both British, Canadian, and American editors. The British view of the Revolution was one of rebellion, not revolution, possibly similar to how Americans view Robert E. Lee as a rebel and the Confederacy was in rebellion. The Men Who Lost America Andrew O'Shaughnessy (2013) Washington may not be viewed positively by many among British and Canadians. Neutrality is significant. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more about the very unfortunate way in which Gray Beard has apparently abused his position as a reviewer. I can only hope that worthwhile articles are not being deleted by the same animus.Hoppyh (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Graham Beard has abused himself as an editor and is entitled to Graham Beards' own opinion(s), as long as those opinions are not put into the article. The goal is to get George Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

More about the FAC
Here's an example of the kind of sentence the reviewers said needed to be improved: When discipline was called for Niemcewicz noted that it was not Washington's desire to resort to severe treatment, to both male and female, but sometimes a necessity, while he discouraged any excesses of overseers, some of whom were mulattoes. It's not coherent or lucid. YoPienso (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This sentence is not only coherent, but contextual and comprehensive, qualifying the basis of Washington's dealings here. As far as "lucid" goes, once again we get into shades of gray where any sort of conjecture can be levied in an attempt to justify one's argument. Having said that, I am not 'religiously' opposed to any rewording of the sentence, perhaps splitting it into two, so long as we retain points of context.  In any case, I appreciate the effort to make criticisms at specific issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence has been split. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence is a little protective possibly POV: "it was not Washington's desire to resort to severe treatment". A more neutral statement would be: "at times Washington allowed severe treatment, or whippings, to both male and female slaves" The section could focus more on Washington's abolition will. That really was Washington's legacy to the nation. These are only my suggestions and opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording of the Slavery section needs to be neutral in my opinion. Overall the wording is defending Washington and slavery. Neutral wording should not condemn or condone. Why not say what actually took place and let readers make their own opinions on Washington and slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Insert : We are supposed to say what the sources say. Mulatto overseers are mentioned twice, in context, by Wiencek, 2013 on p.349 and p.350. This is mentioned for historical context, and to help dispel the modern day distortion that slaves were only watched over by a white overseer while frequently being whipped to do work — a general stereotype often perpetuated by activist types and certain politicians trying to win the black vote. As for "defending" Washington, I've heard this type of objection before from people ignorant on the subject. I was hoping at this late date you would have known better. If we were defending Washington there would be little to no section on slavery at all. Whippings are mentioned as well as poor housing. We also mention that Washington as President passed the runaway slave act, a statement that I added not long ago.  We are supposed to present a contextual picture, not some distorted and cherry picked version of it. Also, the statements you tagged were cited, but when I inserted a statement about Washington forgiving runaway slaves, cited by Chernow, 2010, it was placed before the Weiencek citation. Anyone aware of the work being done around here should have seen that, and of course should have re-added the appropriate citation. Is it your desire to add no context whatsoever to the narrative? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Insert: Gwillhickers, first, I am not ignorant on the subject of slavery. According to the article, Washington was a slaveholder who did not want to use "severe punishment", but "felt" he had too. Second, the term "severe punishment" had replaced the word "whippings". Washington allowed male and female slaves to be whipped. That is all that needs to be said. At least allow the reader to make the reader's own opinion(s) of Washington and slavery. What does "forgiving runaway slaves" mean exactly ? Forgiving them from wanting their freedom ? As I mentioned before, in my opinion, the article Slavery section should focus on Washington's abolition will. He tore up his old will at his death bed, and kept his new abolition will, that freed all his slaves, conditioned on the death of his wife, whom she eventally freed in 1801. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The entire section had a number of issues, the sentence quoted above being only a single example. I have done a copy edit to make better sense of some incoherent areas, but some problems still remain. For example, one sentence includes the following: "…he discouraged any excesses by his overseers—some of whom were mulattoes." What on earth is the connection of mulattoes to the rest of the sentence? It actually is implying that mulattoes are normally more violent than other people! I am certain that is not the intended meaning, but I could make no sense of the non-sequitur. The final sentence in the section also needed to be heavily qualified as one man's opinion—pure conjecture, really, as Washington never stated what his motives were, as far as I know.

So hopefully some of these concerns are alleviated. —Dilidor (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanx, Some improvements in grammar may have been needed but there were no "incoherent" statements. I explained why Mulattos are mentioned above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, there is a longstanding pattern in your responses to constructive criticism: you tend to reject suggestions and argue that no improvement is needed. Here are some recent diffs regarding the FAC for you to consider:
 * Regarding a reviewer's concern over length: "This article is no longer than the Ulysses S. Grant featured article." You argued about the length numerous times recently on the talk page, refusing to accept the suggestion that the article is too long.
 * Regarding coherence, you have been unwilling to accept the general comments from at least five editors (Graham Beards, Brianboulton, auntieruth, Dilidor, and myself) that the prose needs to be improved. You require specific examples. Yet, when they are provided, you reject them.
 * "The sentence Graham Beards refers to makes perfect sense to me, so I'm not clear about what the issue there is. [Etc.]"
 * "...I was really spun when I read that some of the prose was '...completely intelligible' [sic], which, imo, was an overkill and inappropriate criticism, seemingly made in haste, considering."
 * "...I will continue to be skeptical of the apparent notion that the entire article is such that it has to be trimmed, rewritten, etc."
 * "This sentence is not only coherent, but contextual and comprehensive..."
 * "Getting back to Yopienso's concern, there's nothing inaccurate or overstated in the sentence in question."
 * "Some improvements in grammar may have been needed but there were no "incoherent" statements."
 * Please make an effort to graciously adopt the suggestions made by your peers. This will expedite improvements to the articles you work on and support a collegial working environment. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Insert : — Yopienso, you need to be more accurate in your rather sweeping assessment of my activity. I have never said that no improvements are needed, and if you take a close look at the discussions above I have several times maintained that improvements may be needed. Once such example occurs right above your comments here! I have only taken exception to sweeping comments about "incoherent", or "unintelligible" prose. Some sentences may be too long for some readers to deal with but they are not incoherent. At your suggestion I just split a rather long sentence into two. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence was incoherent, because it tries to say too many things at once, and some of the wording becomes vague. Broken into components:
 * When discipline was called for Niemcewicz noted that it was not Washington's desire to resort to severe treatment" How does Niemcewicz know Washington's intent here, do we have a primary source? As for disciplinary actions, what were they? What does "severe treatment" translate to in this context? Denial of food and water for a while, or are we talking about Byzantine-style political mutilation (disfigurement, blinding, castration, rhinotomy, amputation of limbs)?
 * "to both male and female" Similar discipline style for both males and females. That is at least clear enough.
 * "but sometimes a necessity" The notion here is probably that lack of discipline would result in unproductive slaves, a danger to any slaveholding operation. Perhaps the rationale behind the discipline could be made clearer.
 * "while he discouraged any excesses of overseers" There are valid, self-serving reasons for such discouragement. He probably would not want the overseers to cripple or eliminate his workforce. Replacing them could be costly. Again the rationale should be clearer.
 * "some of whom were mulattoes." The backgrounds of the overseers might be interesting to note, but they have nothing to do with anything else in that sentence. Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * — The mulattoes were overseers, and therefore tie in with the sentence regarding overseers. Again, they're mentioned because the sources mention them several times and for historical context, as I've already explained above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * re.Niemcewicz. He was was an outsider, a visitor to Washington's plantations. His remarks are noted, rather than e.g.Washington's because he was more impartial than Washington would have been with such an assessment. Wiencek, 2013, refers to him to make the point and doesn't attempt to read his mind any further than his general comments about slave life under Washington. However, I will see what I can do to better present the idea, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

With addition of Augustine pic, things look a bit crowded with the info box, at least on a tablet. You’re the image man, what do you think of moving him and Betty down? Also the coat of arms is already in the info box, maybe that could go? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoppyh. It is the way Wikipedia is set up, backwards. Article series and infoboxes interfere with the narration and create overcrowding. I am not the "image man". The coat of arms does not need to be in the article twice. The problem with moving the images down is that it takes the photos away from the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as the general objective of an infobox is to present “key” facts, I submit that it is afield if it’s purpose, and now represents a hindrance. That said, this is not my bailiwick.Hoppyh (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)