Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George Washington's political evolution

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

George Washington's political evolution

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

George Washington's political evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers George Washington's evolution from a young man 'on the make' to the first president of the United States and father of his country. Although the main focus is political, Washington's military service played a significant part in his political development, so I'm hoping that it will be acceptable to put it up for review here. A peer review did not attract any attention, but the article has just succeeded at GAN. I'm keen to get more critical eyes on the article before a possible run at FAC. Factotem (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding to the map caption an explanation of what the colours mean
Done Factotem (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lawrence_Washington.jpg needs a US PD tag
The best I could find is a source indicating that the portrait wasn't sold from private ownership until 1936, so suspect no copyright expired tag will possible. Replaced with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Lawrence_Washington_B%26W.jpg, which is a copy that was published in a book published in 1889 (and added link to source to the commons info for it as proof). Factotem (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-_The_First_Continental_Congress,_1774.jpg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-_Apotheosis_of_Washington,_War.jpg
I changed File:Flickr - USCapitol - Apotheosis of Washington, War.jpg so that both these images are licensed as the work of an employee of the Architect of the Capitol. Obviously I'm missing something here; would you mind elaborating? As works of art commissioned by the US Congress and displayed in the US Capitol building, aren't they federal works in the public domain, as stated in the licence tags? Factotem (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough information given to say for sure, particularly for the first. It is stated to be a canvas - is it known to have been commissioned by Congress for display? That something is displayed in a US federal building doesn't automatically make it a federal work. For the second, is the artist known? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first was completed by Allyn Cox, the second by Constantino Brumidi. The WP articles indicate that both were commissioned by the federal government, though obviously WP is not a valid source. Bear with me please, I'll do some scurrying around the internet for some decent sources. Factotem (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Architect of the Capitol website provides information on Allyn Cox, the Cox Corridors (where the first image is displayed), and Constantino Brumidi. I've added these links to the commons pages. The site does not explicitly state that they were commissioned, but both artworks are part of the frieze that decorates the rotunda, which I believe is in areas I believe are open to the public - Brumidi's Apotheosis in the rotunda and Cox's work in the Great Experiment Hall (part of the Cox Corridors linked above). And the canvas was applied to the walls, so Cox's work is not a painting but a mural. Factotem (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Washington_taking_command_of_the_American_Army_at_Cambridge,_1775_-_NARA_-_532874.tif: licensing tag doesn't make sense here - are we saying that Wageman was a US Government employee? Same with File:Triumph_of_Patriotism._George_Washington_entering_New_York,_1783._Copy_of_print_by_A._H._Ritchie_after_F.O.C._Darley.,_1_-_NARA_-_532881.tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always. I had a mad panic just after submitting this for ACR when I realised that I had forgotten to review the image licensing, then spent a good part of the afternoon going through them all and fixing that as best I could. I'm quite relieved that relatively few have been flagged, and that I have hopefully not wasted too much of your time. Initial comments above. The rest will need a bit of research, if you could bear with me. Factotem (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Washington_taking_command_of_the_American_Army_at_Cambridge,_1775_-_NARA_-_532874.tif - I've replaced it with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_Taking_Command_of_the_American_Army_%E2%80%93_At_Cambridge,_Massachusetts,_July_3rd,_1775_MET_DP853566.jpg, which has a {{Cc-zero}} license. I've not seen that before, and it looks a little suspect to me. If that doesn't fly, then both the source and the image itself state that it was published by Currier & Ives in 1876, which I believe makes a {{PD-US-expired}} licence valid if necessary. Factotem (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site, the museum places images of artworks it believes to be PD under a CC0 license. This is a bit weird - if it's PD, CC shouldn't be applied at all - but could be gotten around by saying that the museum believes the artwork to be PD. I wouldn't use the US-expired tag unless we can demonstrate publication at that time, as the source doesn't seem to say explicitly when or if this was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says publisher is Currier and Ives, and gives a date of 1876, and the caption below the image itself states the same. If that does not convince, can I simply add text to the commons description along the lines of The Metropolitan Museum of Art believes this artwork to be Public Domain? Factotem (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Triumph_of_Patriotism._George_Washington_entering_New_York,_1783._Copy_of_print_by_A._H._Ritchie_after_F.O.C._Darley.,_1_-_NARA_-_532881.tif, I could not find any source to confirm the artist was a government employee, so I've replaced it with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evacuation_Day_-_Washington%27s_entrance_into_New_York_-_Emmet.jpeg, to which I've added numerous sources to support the artist biography and 19th century publication. Factotem (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've replaced the infobox image with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington-patriae-pater.jpg. I believe the new image is correctly licensed. Factotem (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Chetsford

[edit]

This is a very good article but I need to marinate a bit on whether or not to support it or remain neutral, only because I'm unclear as to the actual subject of the article. The title seems to indicate it's a study in personal ideology, however, the content of the article veers heavily into biography with dates and facts of occurrences and actions without (sometimes) a clear linkage to their philosophical import. To be clear, though, I have no intention of opposing it, I just need to cerebrate upon it a bit. My only functional comment is that "The Intolerable Acts being forced down the throat of America" may not be an entirely NPOV descriptive caption for the drawing titled America Swallowing the Bitter Draught. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. Much appreciated, and some valuable feedback. I've fixed the caption. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, the article is meant to be about how a relatively minor member of the colonial Virginia aristocracy who started out in life agressively pursuing his own self-interest ended up as the first president of the United States. It's not just about his personal ideology, i.e. how his loyalty shifted from the Crown to the colonies and the path by which he arrived at republicanism, nationalism and federalism. It's also about how he transformed from a soldier then plantation owner chasing glory/social elevation/riches, one who professed to have little interest in politics, to someone who became the centre of politics. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does that clarify things? If it does, then clearly I've not done a good job in the article itself. Could you perhaps point me to a specific example of where the article veers into biography without linking back to philosophical import? It might help me better understand the general issue you have identified. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not just about his personal ideology" I think that helps clarify the purpose of the article for me. I was reading it as a philosophical study, but - if I understand correctly - it is a chronology of appointments.
"It's not just about his personal ideology, i.e. how his loyalty shifted from the Crown to the colonies and the path by which he arrived at republicanism, nationalism and federalism. It's also about how he transformed from a soldier then plantation owner chasing glory/social elevation/riches, one who professed to have little interest in politics, to someone who became the centre of politics." The trouble I'm having is understanding how this is so different from what one would expect in a conventional biography that it would not be more appropriate in George Washington or the numerous existing subsidiary articles about him. Fundamentally, I might be able to wrap my head around it better if it were organized by subject-matter instead of chronologically, more similar to Religious views of George Washington. The structure, at present, is sectioned around a sequential narrative of life events. That said, I don't suggest you make any changes to the article based on my comments as this is more likely than not a personal difficulty I'm having understanding the article; the article, as I said, is very good and I think you should ignore everything I've just written unless or until someone else expresses a similar perception (which may not actually occur). I have no intention of opposing this article, my !vote is Neutral right now and, pending feedback from other editors, I intend to change it to Support. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington biography has a huge amount of ground to cover and is already excessively long, and this one creeps just over the maximum size recommended in WP:LENGTH. I can see no alternative to the current structure; an article that discusses an evolution is, I think, necessarily sequenced chronologically. Having someone oppose this candidate concerns me nowhere near as much as the possibility you've identified that I've written about events and actions without clearly establishing their relevance to the article subject. Your input is much appreciated and valued. Factotem (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. And just to clarify, if I haven't sufficiently already, I believe this article is otherwise beyond reproach in every way and is, frankly, superior in both prose and completeness to any of the various Washington articles. I'm going to read it again a few times. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read it again and more thoroughly compared it against the other Washington articles and I'm prepared to Support now. A few general comments:

  • You mention Washington's discomfort at the Society of the Cincinnati in 1786 but it might be good to briefly mention his role in the first plenary session of the society in 1784 when he (ultimately unsuccessfully) tried to have the hereditary requirements dropped since his own writings at that time, I believe, more fully addressed his issues; I think a further mention of Washington's later decision to apparently embrace it in some form by wearing the badge of the Cincinnati for the rest of his life (IIRC he even had a special diamond-encrusted one made for his exclusive use) might balance his apparent wishy-washiness with respect to the Society. This might veer into the realm of WP:OR, however, so take this as nothing more than a throwaway comment; I defer to your judgment.
  • I think it would be worthwhile briefly mentioning the dichotomy or evolution in Washington's views about federal order insofar as his treatment of the Shay Mutiny and the Whiskey Rebellion. "Washington and the Whiskey Insurrection" [1] is an all encompassing source if that could be distilled to a few sentences (LMK if you want me to send you the PDF if you don't have access).
  • Thank you for linking to Provisional Army of the United States!!!

Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! You're welcome. Didn't realise that was one of yours. Thanks. Washington's efforts to get the Cincinnati to renounce hereditary membership is already mentioned, albeit in a footnote. There's a strand in post-revolutionary politics relating to the fact that Washington never intended to upend the social order inherent in the British colonial system and bring greater democracy, but intended instead to maintain essentially the same order but with American rather than British aristocracy in control. I think that's what you're referring to with the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions, but it's an avenue I didn't go down because it seemed a bit of a stretch. I'll ponder on that some more. Factotem (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With both apologies and thanks to Nikkimaria and Chetsford, I'm requesting withdrawal of this review to clear the way for an ACR of the Battle of Monmouth Factotem (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Strike that. Didn't realise it's OK to nominate more than one ACR at the same time. Factotem (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Factotem, I think that given this has been open for three months and has only attracted a single support, it might be time to close it as no consensus to promote, without prejudice to a run at FAC if that's what you are thinking. I'm sure that Chetsford's comments and Nikkimaria's image review will have been helpful in that regard. It may be that the military angle to it wasn't enough to attract sufficient reviewers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello gentlemen greetings to Factotem and PM, if you both don't mind then I'll have a review here. Because I thought I reviewed this one a while ago, looks like I didn't sadly. Please do not close this nomination (not for now). I'll give you both my review this evening CET or tomorrow evening, it's really long so I'll need some time to have a look here in it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

In general

  • Link France with the Kingdom of France's article.
  • Link Canada with The Canadas' article.
  • Try to avoid using seasons in this article like summer, winter, and fall by MOS:SEASON.
  • Like these examples were written in the summer of 1783 on the subject,
  • short-term enlistments expired in the fall of 1775,
  • Washington's own radicalization began over the winter
  • over the difficult winter of 1777–1778 at Valley Forge – a winter,
  • Note c,
  • Note m,
  • became fully radicalised over the summer of 1774
  • the Declaration of Independence the next summer
  • I enter upon the command of the American armies, I date my fall
  • And Note o.

Infobox

  • Do we know the specific dates when he took those titles? If we do shan't we put them in the infobox?
Not all of them.

Lead

  • youth spent around his half-brother Lawrence Maybe add this surname. I know he has the same surname then George has, however, he was his half-brother so the readers don't know or his mother or father was the same as George had. If he came from George's mother then he had a different surname.
Not sure that's necessary. The link reveals that Lawrence is a Washington, not explicitly stating the surname pretty much defaults to a Washington surname, and by restricting "Washington" to mean only George, we avoid any confusion about which Washington we're writing about in subsequent sentences.
  • he had been surrounded with in a youth "with in" --> "within"?
Re-written to avoid the false "within"
Sorry, but disagree; the definite article is necessary here.
  • Victory cemented Washington's reputation --> "The victory cemented Washington's reputation"
Sorry, but disagree again. In this case, the definite article would, I think, trip the reader. It forces a pause to consider "What victory?", because none has previously been mentioned. The more generic "Victory", without a definite article, relates naturally to the American Revolutionary War previously mentioned in the narrative and flows more smoothly.
  • Link Great Britain with Kingdom of Great Britain's article both in the lead and body.
Done
  • Cultivating an image of disinterested patriot --> "Cultivating an image of the disinterested patriot"
Again, definite article is not necessary here
  • him widespread acclaim as a modern day Cincinnatus You mean "modern-day"?
I do, and done
  • insisting that he was accepting only at --> "insisting that he was accepted only at"
He was the one doing the accepting, so the 'ing' form is correct
  • Link "president of the United States".
Done. Factotem (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body

Young Washington

  • British colony of Virginia on February 22, 1732 Old or New Style calendar? I think we should add the Old Style here. Also, capitalise "colony" here.
O.S. date added, "colony" capitalised. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • George inherited the 260-acre Ferry Farm and Lawrence inherited the 2,500-acre Little Hunting Creek No metric units here?
  • who presided over some six million acres of land Same as above.
  • On his return he was appointed adjutant --> "On his return, he was appointed adjutant"
Done Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in him a lifelong need for approval.[7][6] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he had acquired some 2,500 acres on the Virginia frontier No metric units here?
  • This was a little mistake of mine here we shouldn't add a metric unit here.
Did wonder what the metric equivalent was. Will leave as is. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question you ask Factotem, well in metric units it should be squere metre. However, most people use hectare instead of square metre. Hectare isn't part of the metric units so exactly I'm wrong in this sentence but even it isn't part of SI-units it's still acceptable to use it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major Washington

  • asserting their claim to the territory, No comma here.
Done Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Securing a reputation

Sorry, disagree. Definite article is necessary here. Although "Forks of the Ohio" looks like a proper name (and we wouldn't write, for example, "for the Pittsburgh", which is where the forks are today), the place is actually the fork where two rivers meet. The source uses the same definite article and capitalisation. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ambushing a French force of less than 50 men Replace less with fewer.
Good catch. Done. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • promoted colonel following the death of the regiment's commander Do we know who the commander was?
Added. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • honor and widespread acknowledgement for the victory Here is the first British/American English issue. British acknowledgement.
Did not even know the Americans spelled that word differently. Corrected. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note b to mis-translate the word "assassination" to "death" or "loss".[32][31][30] First "mis-translate" --> "mistranslate" and second suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done and done. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • resigned his commission rather than accept demotion Add an "a" before demotion.
Sorry, but disagree again. The indefinite article is not necessary, and I think the prose is more elegant without it. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

In pursuit of a royal commission

  • Still unwilling to accept demotion, Same as above.
  • king and country "with my poor abilitys" Is this old English? I mean it looks odd to me shouldn't it be "abilities"?
Quoted text like this is presented verbatim, as originally written and with no amendments for 18th-century spellings (and the American English of the day doesn't appear to have developed its distaste for the letter 'u' etc.). Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pressed Dinwiddie to appoint him commander and urged Add an "a" before commander.
  • the appointment to be "press'd upon me Isn't it "pressed"?
Quoted text. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disillusionment

  • of British forces in North America, did I do not think we should use a comma here.
That comma ends a parenthetical clause and is necessary. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the two met in Philadelphia later that year Link Philadelphia here.
  • grateful country" (i.e. Virginia), a regard in which I think we should remove the a here.

Mr. Washington Esq.

  • In 1757, Washington had added 500 acres to Mount Vernon No metric units here?
  • expansion that would ultimately result in an 8,000 acre estate "8,000 acre" --> "8,000-acre"?
Done. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • both causes for further disillusionment with Great Britain.[75][71] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land speculation

  • 2.5 million acres of land in the Ohio valley No metric units? And shouldn't "valley" be capitalised?
Ohio valley is not a proper name, so no capitalisation for valley. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note e Washington suggested 200,000 acres along the Monongahela No metric units?
  • Still Note e various tracts, to agree how the land "agree on how"?
"on" not necessary here. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Note e secured for themselves seven eighths of the bounty lands Shouldn't there be an hyphen between seven eighths
Indeed there should, and there is now. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to grant him a colonel's entitlement of 5,000 acres, which he No metric units?
  • Washington had amassed some 32,000 acres of land Same as above.

Burgess Washington

  • He was re-elected in 1765 and returned British re-elected.
Done. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political awakening

  • to petition the king for the redress the "King"?
I struggle with the correct capitalisation of King, but on reflection I think you are right, and all instances where "king" refers specifically to King George III have been capitalised now. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they drank toasts to the king Same as above.
  • colonial rights and loyalty to the king Same as above.

Political ascendancy

  • became fully radicalised over the summer British radicalised.
Americanised. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unexampled testimoney of the most despotic system I think this is a typo "testimoney" --> "testimony"?
Quoted text. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • by which Washington still stood to gain 10,000 acres No metric units here?
  • that ever was practiced in a free gov[ernmen]t".[112][113][61] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • final resolution recommended petitioning the king to assert The King?
  • to the Crown, warn the king "to reflect Same as above.

Militancy

  • "regular, systematic plan...to fix the Shackles of Slavry on us" Is Slavry here as a typo?
Quoted text Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Massachusetts.
  • the business of the congress was conducted The Congress?
I don't believe so. In this case, congress refers not to the later, formally constituted body but a gathering, and should be no more capitalised than if it was a "summit" or "convention". Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The congress also urged the mobilization Same as above.
  • his return from the congress The Congress?
  • accepted command of the Prince William The Prince William? Maybe remove "the" or uncapitalise prince here.

General Washington

  • Link Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire

Republican

  • by the British. Gage refused to recognise any rank British recognise.
Americanised Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • derived from the king and declared the The King?
  • "conceive any more honourable, than that which British honourable.
Quoted text Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • manifesto for his behavior throughout the war, and demonstrated I do not think we should add here a comma.
You think right. Removed. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent

  • who had deceived the king and sought The King?
  • French and Indian War without pay out of a You mean "payout"?
No. "payout" is not correct here. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • colonies, and it was the king on whom the revolutionaries The King?
  • a majority supported petitioning the king Same as above.
  • acting on the commission of the king Same as above.
  • explicitly refer to his enemy not as I think we should add a comma behind enemy.

I don't believe it's necessary Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Political infighter[reply]

  • s short-term enlistments expired in the fall of 1775 Avoid using seasons here.
  • accounted for 15 per cent of its strength British per cent.
Americanised Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist

  • were written in the summer of 1783 on the subject Avoid using seasons here.
  • "Competent powers to congress for general Congress?
If I had written this, then yes, I would have capitalised congress because it's now referring to the formal body, but in this instance it's another case of quoted text. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Convention

  • being associated with an organisation increasingly British organisation.
  • aristocratic and politically intrusive organisation Same as above.
Done and done. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell to politics

  • His final address to congress called for To Congress?
Done Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • government was the proper fulfilment of the British fulfilment.
Done Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell to politics

  • His final address to congress called for an expanded To Congress?
  • In March 1797, Washington retired once again to Mount Vernon Remove 1797 here. I don't think we should've here a year because the same year is in the previously sentences.
Not done - 1797 is not stated earlier, so it is necessary to state it here. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition

  • concludes that the attack on Jumoville was motivated You mean Jumonville?
Good catch - fixed. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political disinterest

  • After his re-election to the House of Burgesses British re-election.
Americanised Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • towards Redstone Creek on June 16 No comma after 16?
Rest of the sentence is in parentheses, so no comma needed. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

  • Ref 25, "p. 23–24" --> "pp. 23–24".
  • Ref 69, "p. 117, 137–138" --> "pp. 117, 137–138".
  • Ref 162, "p. 127–128, 139" --> "pp. 127–128, 139".
  • Ref 285, "p. 678–680" --> "pp. 678–680"
Done Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • In the "File:Map of territorial growth 1775.svg" The thirteen American colonies (red) and limit of westward expansion into uncolonized territory (pink) as set by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 Shouldn't there be a "the" before uncolonized?

That's anything from me, for now, I'll continue later and finish the article tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Little issues Hey Factotem could you please address these comments if you do then we're done here because I can not see any other issue here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think we should add a second "(10 km²)".
  • Washington had added 500 acres (2.0 km2) It's not necessary to add an extra nought here.
  • formed to claim two and a half million acres By MOS:NUMERAL we can't use a number which has more than two words in it. We've to change "two and a half million" to "2.5 million" here.
  • chance of success to be worth risking his reputation for.[213][210] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
All done. Factotem (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me, for now, I'll continue later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. I'm afraid I disagree on pretty much every point you make about the need for (in)definite articles, and have pushed back on those, but the rest of your comments have been addressed. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's anything from me, for now, I'll continue later and finish the article tomorrow. Well yes, probably but I'm not an expert in this area in history, but I'm happy to help you. Even if I make grammar mistakes or you disagree with me than I am open to your answers. I'm not a native English speaker if you didn't notice that already? But does that means I can't help you with that? I don't think so, I follow my feelings whether it should have an a, the or a comma. Anyway please have a look in my new comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More responses above. I had not realised that you are not a native English speaker, and your command of English is all the more impressive for its mastery of national versions. Having said that, I think I'm on the opposite side of you 100% of the time in terms of the appropriate use of (in)definite articles. Occasionally your suggestion to use/not use "a" or "the" are, to me, just wrong, but most of the time they are, whilst not wrong, not necessary, and the prose is, in my opinion, more elegant without. I have still yet to address the metric conversions for acres, but will do so. I also need to fully acquaint myself with MOS:SEASON; something about that doesn't sound right to me, and certainly, the winter at Valley Forge cannot be de-seasoned because the fact that it was winter is an important detail. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added conversions to show all acreage in km2 as well. I've also removed all instances of dating an event to a season, but have retained mentions of winter where it is an important detail (i.e. the winter at Valley Forge, and in a footnote discussing the Forbes Expedition's need to complete a route into the frontier before winter). Factotem (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Factotem, well first MOS:SEASON says that we should try to avoid to use seasons. Because it probably could confuse our readers especially in regions like the southern hemisphere and around the equator line (because they have not the same seasons as we have). If it is really important to use a (or more) season(s) in this article, or if it is safe to use seasons than I don't think it'd be a bad idea to let them like they are. Second, it's not a bad idea of yours to use km² instead of hectares. Both are 100 per cent correct to use, only that hectares are more commonly in small areas but that doesn't mean we shan't ignore kilometres. Also, thank you for your kind words, You're not the only one who said my English is good for a non-native English speaker. Which surprises me every day because I personally do not think it is that good so I every day surprised that can understand me. Most people think I'm an American or Briton even Americans and Britons think the same, that's just so weird to think about. It also took me literally hours and hours to review this article. First read the text then search the "issues" then write them up in the nomination and of course, re-read them to be sure that I didn't miss an "issue". I took me at least five hours to read, search, write, re-read and sometimes search it on Google for some information. Anyway, we're just 2/3 into the article and Hopefully, it was helpful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's anything, this time the whole review and the whole article. I'm happy to help you even you disagree with "some" of my comments, but that's fine we all learn something more every day. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you so much for your very thorough review. I know from my own reviews how much effort is involved, especially for articles as long as this, and your devotion is commendable. I've addressed pretty much every issue you've identified, bar two: I just cannot get on board with your suggestions about the use of (in)definite articles, and have not changed those; and the linking of places such as Philadelphia, US States and some countries are, in my opinion, not optimal per MOS:OVERLINK. I hope you're OK with these pushbacks - happy to discuss if not. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/George_Washington%27s_political_evolution&oldid=905170648"