Talk:George Washington's political evolution/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BMO4744 (talk · contribs) 02:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing The Evolution of George Washington's Political Evolution.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.Y

This article gets a pass when it comes to the writing of the article. The size is reasonable for the scope of the article. I have found no grammatical mistakes during my review and the paper is reasonably understood.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Y

The sources are factual and reliable. The books have been shown to have been accurate and I give the factual accuracy a pass.

1. It is broad in its coverage. Y

The article covers most, if not all of George Washington's political views from the influences of his childhood into his post-presidency. I think that the article should be shortened as some of the sections go into way too much detail. The sections on Political ascendancy and Militancy are of concern and I think they should be shortened

I'm quite surprised at this, given that the events covered in those two sections represent key moments in Washington's political evolution and go to the crux of the subject. Are there any specific issues you can point to that you think should be trimmed down? Factotem (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I recede my comment on the Militancy section. My thoughts still stand on the Political Ascendancy section. The paragraph on the Fairfax resolves, I believe could be shortened. BMO4744 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I appreciate your input, but I think it's important to go into some detail about the Fairfax Resolves. They were the most militant of all measures adopted at the county level, and Washington was chairman of the committee that passed them, thus demonstrating the extent of his increasing politicisation. The resolves feature again in the narrative, becoming the basis for the measures adopted by the Virginia Convention, which in turn became the basis of the Continental Association adopted by the First Continental Congress, so they are quite important to the narrative. I have trimmed the first part of the paragraph, but that's about as much as I can do without removing important detail. Factotem (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, the edits you made will be satisfactory. I give it a pass. BMO4744 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

1. neutral point of view policy

The article is written in an very unbiased point of view with no bias shown in the piece. Since it is pre-1932 US politics the subject of the article does not come under controversy nearly ever. This section gets a pass.

1. It is stable. Y

Article is stable and their has seemed to be no edit warring in the edit history.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. Y

All images are in the public domain and the article is well illustrated

1. Overall:

   Pass: Y