Wikipedia:Peer review/George Washington/archive4

George Washington
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's an important article, particularly in American history, and I'd like to know which areas need improving so as to get it ready for FAC.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 3:29pm • 05:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day, I took a quick look at the citation density. Generally it looks good to me, but I think at FAC you might get asked to provide citations for the following sentences:
 * "The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon, near Alexandria, where he took up the life of a planter and political figure.";
 * "In 1917, the 886 Washingtonia asteroid was named in his honor";
 * "As president he made a point of being seen attending services at numerous churches, including Presbyterian, Quaker, Congregational and Catholic." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this but please be patient. It's a long page and I'll be working through it slowly. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I'll be adding comments slowly but here is a beginning:
 * Infobox
 * Presumably this is the style used for American presidents but the infobox on this page is extremely long and distracting. I'd suggest trimming as much as possible. Certainly the flags should be removed and delink, per WP:Overlink, as much as possible.


 * Lead
 * Try trimming down the lead. It will be hard and might have to be done word-by-word
 * Probably don't need to link to List of Presidents of the United States - be careful of overlinking
 * Because this is a summary article with many sub-articles, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. As such, I'd suggest removing any statements in the lead that require citing - the lead should be a summary and reflection of the article as a whole.


 * Early life
 * Is it necessary to mention the different dates? I can see an argument for it, but it's a lot to read through in the first few sentences. Perhaps all of that can be better summarized and shoved into a note?
 * Perhaps the section about the deaths of the siblings could be simplified and perhaps the details shoved into a note? Again, a lot to get through here early on.
 * I thought Lawrence was his father's heir and inherited the estate. If that's the case should be explicitly explained.
 * Cite needed for sentence that Thomas Fairfax became a formative influence. Just out of curiosity, how did this come about?
 * What happened to the mother after his father died? Again, I seem to have some recollection that because Lawrence was heir, George's mother and children were in financial difficulty. If that's the case, it should be mentioned.
 * The bit about joining the navy is vague - what did his mother learn that prevented her from allowing him to join? If it's too much to explain maybe take out the piece that she wouldn't allow him or shove into a note.
 * What happened to the Washington estate after Lawrence's death? Did George inherit or Lawrence's children?


 * Seven years war
 * "Washington was at the center of its beginning." > I think this is a bit exagerated. I'd suggest simply explaining that the French were in current day western Pennsylvania, the area the Ohio Country wanted to develop, and the Dimwiddie sent George to Fort Le Beouf with a letter. Also should mention that Washington went with Christopher Gist in the dead of winter. This entire event is very interesting and could be expanded - certainly the crossing of Allegheny River on his return, when he almost drowned, should be mentioned. I think that's in Anderson's book. Washington also kept a journal of the event, as did Christopher Gist, and although primary sources, would be okay to pull out a quote or two in my view. If you haven't access, I have both and would be happy to add.
 * Chronology: should probably be spelled out a bit better. Wash traveled from Williamsburg north with Gist in Nov/Dec - stopping at Logstown where they met Tanachrisson, and then north to Fort Le Beouf. Then back south to Williamsburg. Returned in the spring with the militia - ostensibly to support William Trent, but he lost control to Trent's fort to Duquesnes so Washington was stuck at the Great Meadows which led the ambush at Jumonville Glen. Conversely I think the Jumonville Glen material could be summarized: simply that there was an ambush, Washington & native allies, and the French were killed (assassinated? ). The result was that Jumonville's brother marched on Great Meadows the battle at Fort Necessity.
 * "However, he was allowed to return with his troops to Virginia." > this glosses over the fact that the men were badly outnumbered, stinking drunk, many many were killed, and Washington in fact had to give up command to George Mackay. It was Washington who signed the surrender document. Again all of this should be summarized somehow.


 * Braddock disastor
 * Explain why Washington was only an aide-de-camp. In fact after Ft. Necessity he resigned from the militia and as a colonial was not allowed to join the British army.
 * Should probably mention that he fought bravely during this battle which was disastrous - I don't know how true and would need to look at sources, but remember that he had at least one horse if not more shot from him.
 * Commander of Virginia regiment
 * I'd suggest finding a more recent source than Flexner (from 1965) for this section.
 * What was his position in Forbe's army?


 * Lessons learned
 * "Although Washington never gained the commission in the British army he yearned for, in these years the young man gained valuable military, political, and leadership skills" > I think it's really important to emphasize that as a colonial - and born in the colonies - he was ineligible for commission in the British army.

More later .... Truthkeeper (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

to be cont... Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Between the wars
 * Should probably mention that Martha was older than George in a parenthetical phrase
 * "As a respected military hero and large landowner, he held local office and was elected to the Virginia provincial legislature, the House of Burgesses, beginning in 1758.[46]" > I can't tell whether this is repetitive. Is the local office the same as the provincial legislature or a different office?
 * "Patsy Custis's death in 1773 from epilepsy enabled Washington to pay off his British creditors, since half of her inheritance passed to him.[51]" > who is she and why did he inherit money from her?
 * I think something should be done about combining the three short stubby paragraphs at the end of this section.
 * American revolution
 * The section begins with a pronoun > needs Washington's name somewhere in the first sentence for clarity]
 * "which called for the convening of a Continental Congress, among other things..." > can probably do without the "among other things" otherwise they should be explained
 * Commander in chief
 * Does that need to be hyphenated?
 * I think it needs a transition from the Continental Congress to the Battles of Lexington and Concord > that's a really big jump for a lay reader
 * How was he chosen Commander-in-Chief? Adams nominated - was there then vote? Also where was the 2nd Continental Congress held? Were these all in Philadelphia?
 * I'm a little lost in the 3 roles section and there's a short para, a long para, and another short para. I'd suggest trying to restructure a bit here
 * Victory at Boston
 * I think that should be moved up to be with the Lexington / Concord bit beccause that was jarring.


 * Defeat at New York
 * "These victories alone were not enough to ensure ultimate Patriot victory, however, since many soldiers did not reenlist or deserted during the harsh winter." I misread this the first time so probably should be reworded slightly. Also is Patriot a common term - only asking because I'm curious.


 * 1777 campaign
 * This fine but there are four short section in row here: "1777 campaign", "Valley Forge", "Victory at Yorktown", and "Demobilization". I'm wondering if any of these can be combined - for instance tack "Valley Forge" to the end of the 1777 campaign, and maybe have a "Victory at Yorktown and demobilization" section.


 * Demobilization
 * Try combining the paragraphs to avoid short choppy paras


 * Constitutional constitution
 * Another short section here - but honestly this should be it's own section and I can't think how to fix this, so it's probably fine if the short sections above are fixed
 * Presidency
 * Single sentence paragraph for second term should either be developed more or combined with another paragraph
 * Foreign affairs
 * Awkward sentence here > " Washington, warning and mistrustful of the influence of Illuminism that had been so strong in the French Revolution (as recounted by John Robison and Abbé Augustin Barruel) and its Reign of Terror, demanded the French government recall Genêt, and denounced the societies.[108]" Also, why is the parenthetical statement in smaller font?
 * Death
 * I'm not sure where it is, but there's a policy against using pull quotes, so those should be removed.
 * Legacy
 * I'm not crazy about opening with the large text box, particularly so close to the pull quotes. I'm not sure how to suggest fixing though - it's a good quote and should probably be kept. I'll think about it
 * I'd suggest moving the entire "Legacy section" to the very end of the article and combine with the "Postage and currency" section. Possibly add the "Paper" section there as well.
 * Personal life
 * I"m on the fence about this section. On the one hand it might be nice to deconstruct it and sprinkle these details throughout the article from the beginning since it's a biography instead of stuffing all together in a section at the end; on on the other hand, it does summarize daughter/sub-articles so I can understand why it's done this way. I might revisit these sections at a later date.
 * I'm getting there! I think the sections above are the most important; I've quickly scanned the last few sections and my general comments are that they could use some trimming but will be back with more specific comments regarding those sections.
 * Btw - this is a nicely done article on a very difficult topic. It does need some work, but I doesn't seem insurmountable to me. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally done! Hope these comments are helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)