Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Presidency of George Washington/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 [1].

Presidency of George Washington

edit
Nominator(s): Orser67, Drdpw & Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the presidency of George Washington. After going under a thorough Good Article Review by Display name 99, and a Peer Review by both Wehwalt and Ceranthor, I feel the article about the presidency that shaped America perhaps more than any other meets the Featured Article criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Coat_of_Arms_of_George_Washington.svg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
  • File:Washington's_Inauguration.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:WhiskeyRebellion.jpg, File:Little_Turtle.jpg, File:Treaty_of_Greenville.jpg, File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg
  • File:Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg needs a tag indicating why the original work is in the public domain
  • File:Pinckney's_Treaty_line_1795.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I'm inexperienced in image licensing, but I believe I have addressed most of your problems. How does one source the data in a map? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, include on the image description page a source that verifies that it is accurate. When/where was File:Little_Turtle.jpg first published? Same with File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, think I've got it all. If I made a mistake, please forgive me.Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just want to clarify - are the dates on those two images when they were created, or when they were published? Where was first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Little_turtle is from a lithograph held in the Smithsonian, It is thought to be based on a portrait by Gilbert Stuart in 1797 or 1798. Washington's Farewell Address is from a digitation by the Library of Congress. It does give a publication date, but it is almost illegible. I'll see if I can find a way to in the next week. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, yup, listed date is date of publishing. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice article. Sorry I can't give a full review but perhaps you could add some information on Washington's Indian Policy besides the wars. Here's a source and i can provide more for you if you like. LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry: I feel it's adequately covered in Presidency of George Washington#The Northwest Indian War. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We probably could add something about Washington's attempts to co-exist with the Southwest Indians, including the Treaty of New York and the Treaty of Holston. Orser67 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or this "civilizing" and assimilation missions. LittleJerry (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I think mention of the Treaty of New York and Holston should be added as well. Aside from that, I have no major objections. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi

edit
  • McDonald 1974 pp. 164-165 Hyphen in pg. range; McDonald 1974 pp.169-170 Hyphen in pg. range; Chernow 2010 pp.770-771 Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (42 with; 17 without);
  • 15 files Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC.
  • Howarth 1999, pp. 49–50 Harv error: link to #CITEREFHowarth1999 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Bordewich 2016, pp. 108 P/PP error pp. 108; Morison 1965, pp. 325 ; Chernow 2004, pp. 341. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi got them all. I added ISBN's to the books w/out identifiers, except *Kilpatrick, James J. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government." I couldn't get it. Let me know if I should add OCLC. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no ISBN, go with OCLC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read this reference carefully. Can you spot what's wrong with it? McDonald, Forrest (1974). The Presidency of George Washington. American Presidency. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kansas.
  • Page Smith (1962). Missing Pub. Location; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Is Ellis, Joseph J. (5 instances) the same person as Ellis Joseph (4 instances)?
    Yeah, fixed
  • Inconsistent format: Page Smith vs. Smith, Page... other similar errors?
    Took care of this one at least
  • Allen, Gardner Weld (1905). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Beer, Samuel H. (1987). "Chapter 6: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Boyd, Steven R. (1994). "Chapter 5: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Crew, Harvey W.; Webb, William Bensing; Wooldridge, John, eds. (1892). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Ifft, Richard A. (1985). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Spaulding, Matthew (2001). "Chapter 2: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Bassett, John Spencer (1906). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got two of the three, but not Boyd. Maybe you could find another source for that one? I imagine Forrest McDonald's book probably mentions something along the lines of what is cited to Boyd. Orser67 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

  • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
  • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
  • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck can be verbose. Reading the explanatory page will help. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review.

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

I peer reviewed this article. I have the following additional comments. "made use of an opportunity provided by a chance encounter with Hamilton to an informal dinner meeting at which interested parties could discuss a "mutual accommodation." "encounter ... to" doesn't really work. It might be "encounter at", but if the dinner was to discuss a compromise, how did it come as a surprise?

  • rephrased.Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also proposed redeeming the promissory notes issued by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution at full value." weren't these more land warrants than promissory notes?
  • "Oliver Miller Homestead" Why the cap on Homestead? Similarly "This was the first Special Congressional investigation under the federal Constitution.[142" "Special" should probably be lower case.
  • "and a repudiation of the 1778 treaty and military support with France" The "and military support" doesn't seem correct grammatically.
  • "might work in consort" should the last word be "concert"? If so with whom? Britain?
  • "Agricultural produce could now flow on flatboats down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and on to New Orleans and Europe." this sort of implies the flatboats went on to Europe which is likely not the case.
  • Some mention of Martha Washington in this article and what she was up to during her husband's presidency might be good. You refer to a "first family" Who else accompanied GW?
  • "which upon leaving he promptly arrived in Georgetown, South Carolina, " It might be worth mentioning that he took a ship, if he did.
  • "After South Carolina, Washington arrived in Georgia, going to (among others) Augusta. In late May, Washington turned around, stopping at many Revolutionary War battle sites. On July 11, 1791, they arrived back at Mount Vernon.[236][237]" Who is they? You've just mostly mentioned Washington.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt: got most of them. I'll get back to you when I finish the others. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems comprehensive as far as I can tell and otherwise to fulfill the FA criteria. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments at the peer review. Engaging, well-written, and comprehensive article as far as my non-expert self can gather. ceranthor 03:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jens Lallensack

edit

First I must admit that I am not American and have quite a poor idea of this part of US history (which is part of the reason why I started reading in the first place). The article reads extremely well, and is fully comprehensible, so thumbs up on the prose! I had, however, the slight impression that it is not completely neutral. Parts of it read like a eulogy to George Washington. As I am not into the topic, I can only give some examples for this matter:

  • It is a bit weird to read about "Indians" fighting "Americans". The "Indians" should be named "Native Americans", consequently.
  • The paragraph detailing St. Clair's defeat, it is mentioned three separate times that the US force was "poor" ("poorly trained", "poor defenses", "poorly prepared"). This leaves the impression that some justification is attempted here. One "poorly" would be enough.
  • The only piece of criticism of Washington in the article was, as far as I remember, this bit in the Historical evaluation section: had often opposed the best measures of his subordinates, and had taken credit for his achievements that he had no share in bringing about. – I can't find any examples where he "opposed the best measures" in the article, and such information should not be left out.
  • Despite this more equivocal judgement of McDonald, the article closes with a prominently placed quote of Chernow, who finds Washington "simply breathtaking". This quote is essentially a song of praise, and as such does not say very much except for "Washington is great". I strongly suggest to replace or remove this quote.
  • I'd keep this quote, or something similar, as it does reflect the general view of most historians. I've found McDonald to be somewhat of an outlier.
  • It still feels that, regardless how great Washington really was, a historian should seek to view the topic at a distance and not getting as overenthusiastic as Chernow did. Unfortunate that there isn't a slightly more prudent quote available. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a good idea to also cite a non-American in the "Historical evaluation" section. Such historians perhaps tend to view the topic from a larger distance, and might help to generate a more differentiated view.
  • Yeah getting a quote/evaluation from an international source is a neat idea, but it could be quite difficult to find one, especially if it's specifically about Washington's presidency. I tried searching on Google and JStor for a little while but didn't have any luck. Orser67 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I furthermore have two additional points on structure:

  • There seems to be no obvious reason for having the section "First presidential veto" without also describing his second veto.
  • The "domestic affairs" and "foreign affairs" sections treat the whole presidency from 1789 to 1797." So why is "Election of 1792" placed only at the end of the article, while the first election comes right at the front? Both elections might be better discussed together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes! I am partly convinced, but not fully so yet. Part of the reason he declined taking over a third term were criticism and attacks in the press … Here I still really would like to know what they were all about. In this aspect I just don't feel completely well-informed yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph about his decision to retire; it's at the beginning of the Farewell Address section, and I think it adds new emphasis to the fact that Washington's decision to retire was as much about having accomplished his goals as it was about anything else. I think that the "rise of political parties" section, along with a few other sections, adequately covers the attacks on Washington. E.g. from the public debate subsection of the French Revolution section: "Jeffersonians denounced Hamilton, Vice President Adams, and even the president as friends of Britain, monarchists, and enemies of the republican values that all true Americans cherish." Orser67 (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack perhaps everything has been addressed. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am happy to support now. Great work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

edit

I've looked over this article again and it seems very good. I have one suggestion. Under "Rise of political parties," maybe mention the fact that the Federalist and Democratic-Parties were not well-organized political parties in the modern sense. I'll take a more in depth look to see if there's anything else I can find. Right now, it looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99, I loosely rephrased a sentence to say that the parties were 'loosely organized'. I know it's not an optimal phrase, but I'll go from there. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased what you wrote. Please have a look and see if it's any better. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All but three senators eventually agreed upon His Highness the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the Same." This doesn't sound right. Adams's attempts to establish the titles were almost universally rejected. If you're saying that all but three senators agreed to something, that's making it sound as though it passed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some issues with overlinking. If you use a main article template to direct to his Farewell Address, you shouldn't be linking to that same address in the body. Jay Treaty is linked to in a caption and then again in the body right next to it. John Jay is linked one to many times towards the end of "Election of 1796." There are a few others, but those which I noticed are probably justified with an article of this length. I think this is all. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

edit
  • I'd expect to see the second-last para of Hamiltonian economic program and the second-last para of Public Debate under The French Revolution cited -- pls check for any uncited material after that as well.
  • There appear to be several duplinks, some of which may be justified in a long article but pls review -- you can use this script to highlight the dups in red.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose: I got all the duplinks that seemed unnecessary to me, and cited unsourced statements. I figured in the second-last para of Hamiltonian economic program that the taxation and spending clause was misidentified, and is in fact the Necessary and Proper Clause, but perhaps Orser67 could verify. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Jefferson et. al were also worried about the tax and spending clause, but I think the article works fine as it is now since it conveys their worries about an expansive view of the constitution. Orser67 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys -- further, I think that Lingzhi's source review concentrates on formatting but we need sign-off on source reliability as well; I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (a hoop we ask all nominators who do not yet have FAs under their belt to jump through). If any of the reviewers above would like to perform these, that's great, otherwise one of the nominators can list requests for a source reliability check and a source spotcheck at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a spotcheck. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

edit

Mixed results:

  • 1: not ok. The source only confirms that Washington was not affiliated to a party. It does not say anything about later presidents. (I found it odd, btw, that this statement in the lead has a reference. This is by no means a controversial statement.)
  • 2: ok
  • 3: ok, but no need really to add 4a, that won't make it more true
  • 5: not ok, as far as I can tell. All I have is Google Books, but a search for Morris does not return his quote.
  • 4b: ok
  • 6: not ok, source says letter is from Oct. 3
  • 7a: probably not ok. All I have is Google Books, which does find vp is the runner-up + Washington being neutral, but that same page (unnumbered unfortunately on Google) does not seem to cover vp being president of the Senate, nor northern states (refers to Massachusetts only), nor other people than Washington thinking vp would be from northern state, nor ease sectional tensions.
  • 8: not ok. not page 51 but page 220 lists the candidates. Nothing about Adams and Hancock being top contenders though, just a list of 5
  • 7b: not ok. No mention of Henry Knox
  • 9: ok

Edwininlondon (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon got them all. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Edwininlondon for the spotcheck, and Eddie for actioning. Even so, when a spotcheck comes back with questionable results I think we need another round carried out on a different set of refs. Edwin would you be prepared to do this? Obviously we want a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the sourcing, and I'm not getting that from the first round... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 results:

  • 258 does not mention 21 November, nor does it mention 4 March from first sentence of the section
    • Does march 4 need to be sourced every time it is mentioned? I added a source, but it is really mentioned (and sourced in several places).
  • 259 is ok PLUS it does mention 21 November for NC, so could be source for that
  • 260 is just about right for RI (source says Congress voted for a bit stronger measurements, including imprisonment, but I guess that's too much detail) but it says nothing about NC
  • 261 ok for the date (nothing about equal footing, but I think that's probably ok, nothing about unequal footing either)
  • 262a does not mention $30,000
  • 262b ok
  • 262c ok
  • 264 ok

Edwininlondon (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we find a few more volunteers we can divide and conquer. Happy to help. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Edwin/Eddie. This nom has been a huge effort for many people (time well spent I think) but it has been open two months and if there are still improvements to make with sourcing then that should take place outside the pressure of the FAC process. I'd therefore like to archive this and recommend that Eddie, Edwin, Tim riley if he has time to check print sources as he's kindly done in the past, and anyone else who can help work through all the sourcing for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing to bulletproof it for another nom in the not-too-distant future. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Presidency_of_George_Washington/archive1&oldid=1216962926"