Wikipedia:Peer review/George Washington/archive2

George Washington
Archive: Peer review/George Washington/archive1

The last peer review was five months ago, and it should have improved since then. I really would like to take this to FAC as soon as possible, but what left is there to do? — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 00:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.

*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006. I tested it with the Bobblewik 'dates' monobook tool and it seems to meet that guidance. bobblewik 10:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please alphabetize the categories and/or interlanguage links.


 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.


 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
 * You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
 * Thanks, Andy t 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At first glance, without a thorough reading, it looks good. A few matters: He appointed the whole, fist Supreme Court; "Major presidential acts" makes it sound like something he did, so you might want to change it to "Major legislation" or some such, moving the note about forming the Cabinet to its section, and either add some information about acts he vetoed, and in any case remove the "Signed" from before the names of the acts. There's also no mention of the Whiskey Rebellion. Genet was authorized by France to grant letters of marque. The current wording seemed ambiguous to me.--Monocrat 13:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, and apologies for the delayed response (I could've sworn this page was on my watchlist!). I will be sure to get to each of the things you two listed. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 06:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like my next tasks include adding information about vetoed laws, information about the Whiskey Rebellion (or was it the Whisky Rebellion?), branching off some pages into subpages, and something that was oddly not mentioned here: footnotes. There are too few footnotes, wouldn't you say? Also, is there anymore that should be done to the article before it's sent to FAC? — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 07:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * These comments are with a FAC in mind: People there seem to be opposed to numerous lists, so you might want to reconsider having several lists and the table. If you can find more information about how his speeches, addresses and appointments were received at the time and viewed by historians, that'd be great. Anyway, you should place a further or main template for the French and Indian War in that section. If you take care of the lists, tables, and citations (and you do need many more, especially in "Legacy") you might squeak past FAC, but I think the section on his presidency is too weak as it stands, crippling a claim to comprehensiveness. There's almost no discussion about what roles if any he played in developing the Executive Branch, there's none about diffusing the crisis over federal assumption of states' war debt, in the selection of the federal district. How about Washington's tendency towards the formal and ceremonious (balls and "monarchial" SotU addresses to Congress), which was criticized and eventually undone by Jefferson but restored by later presidents. Ultimately, you touch on the theme of his being caught in the middle of Jefferson-vs.-Hamilton, but you don't really go into it. And how about his personal relationships with the other Founders? How did his popularity fare before, during, and after his presidency?--Monocrat 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)