Jump to content

Talk:Presidency of George Washington/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this article. I have an interest in American history, and I know I've already made some minor edits to this. I'm presently reading Flexner's Washington: The Indispensable Man, the 4-volumes being a bit too much for me. Anyhow, I'll begin posting stuff within a day or two. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • To me this doesn't seem like a comprehensive enough summary of Washington's presidency. The French Revolution is mentioned all too briefly, and there's no specific mention of either the Jay Treaty or his Farewell Address. The ideal length for a lead is 4 paragraphs. This has 3. I think you can work another one in. Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the lead a 4th paragraph, but did not address the concern RE:brevity of French Revolution mention & no specific mention of either Jay Treaty or Farewell Address. Drdpw (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better, but more can be done regarding foreign policy. Specifically, the Farewell Address and show it shaped American foreign policy until at least the 1890s. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this still needs some work, but I think it makes sense to hold off on the lead until we've completed most the major revisions to the body of the article (since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article). Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Election of 1788–89

  • Again, this could do with a little expansion. Do you have a quote from Washington that would indicate how he felt about taking office? Who were the other candidates for VP (Jefferson, etc.)? How did Washington feel about them (if he made his views known)? Display name 99 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this section should be two-to-three paragraphs Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have fine-tuned what Eddie891 recently added to this section and added some text & citations. Drdpw (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I made one edit. It would be nice to add mention of the 12th Amendment to this section. A low-information reader could easily become confused when reading about the procedures for the Electoral College. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done — mention of 12th-A made. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still think this section needs work? It seems pretty good to me.

Inauguration

Start of first presidential and vice presidential terms

Done Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you no longer have an issue with this, as it's no longer present. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, this should definitely be added Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Livingston did it for the simple reason that the ceremony was being held in the State of New York, of which he was the highest judicial authority. Drdpw (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copied some info to from George Washington to address your first and third points in this section Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better. But still a couple points. The prose could use improvement. For instance, "this did not happen" is both vague and unencyclopedic in tone. Why didn't it happen? Also, the quote from the Inaugural Address should come after the oath, because that was the order in which it was delivered. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC
Done — rephrased "this did not happen" sentence and moved address to after oath-taking. Drdpw (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking office

Fixed Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded, I think it's fairly clear now that the Judiciary Act also established the lower courts Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to this section? I can't find it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I neglected to leave a note here detailing what I did to it. The Salary, Taking office (inc. subsections), and Judicial appointments sections have been absorbed into one section, Administration, thus synchronizing the section & subsection headings with other presidential administration articles. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still have an issue with this section?

Executive mansions and the District of Columbia

  • This section is not GA ready. First of all, while Washington did select the exact location of the new capital, its general placement emerged out of a compromise between Jefferson and Hamilton, neither of whom are mentioned in this section. That's a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This compromise is mentioned later (under economic policy), but I agree that the compromise should be expanded on in this section. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should not be discussing Washington's retirement or Adams moving into the White House. That's getting too far ahead.
I re-worded this a little. I think it makes sense to mention the re-naming of DC and Adams moving into the White House in this section, but I agree that there was too much talk about Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that you're rather new here, but as a general rule, before nominating an article for GA status (or anything, really) make sure that maintenance tags like "citation needed" get cleaned up. An article can't become a GA with one of those, and tags like this which can be simply fixed tend to annoy reviewers. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, unfortunately this article wasn't quite ready for GA Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded this section, and cited it. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. But it's still not clear why the capital was moved from New York to Philadelphia. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned that it was due to the passage of the residence act of 1790 Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed "Executive mansions and the District of Columbia" → "Selection of permanent U.S. capital", and moved residence information to "Presidential tours", which I renamed → "Presidential residences and travels". Drdpw (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Northwest Indian War

  • "some 1,100 warriors who easily"-I recommend adding a comma after "warriors."
Done Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the highest casualty rate in any United States Indian war"-Not sure what you mean here. You were just talking about a specific battle, which you'd need to make more clear. But even then, there were plenty of battles with Indians in which the Indians massacred the entire American force. For example, at the Fort Mims massacre in 1813, all 275 militiamen were killed, as well as the majority of civilians. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this has been removed. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the offending redundant sentence Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic policy

  • The opening section is all too brief and should be given a separate sub-section. There isn't enough about Jefferson's opposition to Hamilton or how Washington personally saw the events. It's all too general. People coming here from the main Washington biography are going to want more specifics than what they got there. I don't think that this section is fully living up to their expectations. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You actually may want to retitle the section "Economic policy and the rise of political parties," combining it with the section on parties down below. Bring in the information from that section about what separated the parties on economic lines, and then work foreign affairs differences into the appropriate section. This will avoid repeating material, and will provide the reader with a better sense of where to find the appropriate information, instead of looking all over the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The economic policy section is perhaps the most important section of the article and really needs expansion, imo. I've been itching to improve it for a while but I'm working on a few other articles. Interesting idea to combine this section with the "rise of political parties" section, but the books I've read on the era have often emphasized that foreign policy played nearly as strong a role as did economic policy in forming and solidifying the new parties. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We don't have to combine them. But the section still needs expansion Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been expanded quite a bit, do you still have an issue with it?

The Whiskey Rebellion

Agreed, that's a poor paragraph. This doesn't go against your point, but I do think that the broader importance of the rebellion should be mentioned in some way Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Maybe add "to maintain order" or something like it to the end in order to specify exactly what was going on. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section is much improved from when you reviewed it earlier, do you still have an issue with it? Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign affairs

  • "and then asked for congressional approval once they were finalized."-How is that setting a precedent? The Constitution stipulates that the Senate must approve any treaty. It seems as though Washington was only obeying the Constitution. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good question Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is that he asked for congressional approval AFTER they were finalized. He negotiated the treaty himself, and after the negotiations sent it to the senate. After this, the senate was treated as a sort of Fait accompli I hope that is the correct usage of the phrase . It might not seem important, but Ron Chernow describes it as "This decision may have done more to define the presidency and the conduct of American foreign policy than an entire bookshelf of Supreme Court decisions on the separation of powers. Where the Constitution had been sketchy about Presidential powers in foreign affairs, Washington made the chief executive the principal actor, enabling him to initiate treaties and nominate appointees without first huddling with the senate." Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. This point definitely seems worth including in the article. Orser67 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though sentence about the precedent has apparently been removed. Though it would be nice to include, I don't think it's worth failing the GA review over Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a global position
The French Revolution

I've addressed this issue, along with a few others that I had with this subsection, including re-titling it. Cheers.
This seems to have been addressed Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added (he supported it). Eddie891 Talk Work 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are mentioned in the 'Cabinet section' Eddie891 Talk Work 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Jefferson's reasons for resigning, I was wondering if we could re-word that a little. I think it's generally bad practice to say things like "it has been speculated." Better to say who is doing the speculating (e.g. "historians and biographers such as Jon Meacham and Joseph Ellis have speculated"). I would do it myself, but I'm unclear as to who is saying what. Orser67 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page Smith asserts, "Under the guidance of William Branch Giles and James Madison in the House, and with the behind-the-scenes direction of the Sec of State, Anti-Federalists launched an all-out attack on Hamilton. The purpose was to discredit the administration, cripple the treasury Department, and impeach the Secretary." John Adams (v.2, p.833) He also states "Decisively defeated in his efforts to engineer the censure of [Hamilton], Jefferson resigned from the Cabinet ..." John Adams (v.2, p.845). Drdpw (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peace with Great Britain

Fixed Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good question Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the redundancy issue Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the House issue. Drdpw (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbary pirates

As far as I can tell, the only treaty that the United states would sign with Algiers during Washingtons presidency was the Treaty of Tripoli, witch is what I assume it refers to. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Continental Navy was disbanded and its last vessel was auctioned off in 1785. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this information should be included. Display name 99 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added historical context & background to this subsection. Drdpw (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been addressed. If anything, there may be too much background in this section. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Spain

I tried to address this Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been addressed. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. The whole article was prepared a bit clumsily, but there is a chance that it can reach GA status with a lot of hard work. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added historical context & background to this subsection. Drdpw (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell Address

  • Washington did not condemn political parties as evil. In fact, he stated that their development was natural in a republic. He did, however, warn about factions and divisions which divide Americans and spur fraternal hatred, instability, or tyranny, the latter arising when one faction becomes too powerful. I recommend rephrasing this as "the dangers of factions" or something similar. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to the somewhat weaker "dangers" of political parties, would happily change it more but I'm reluctant to without a source Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation vetoed

The page says "Earlier apportionment legislation had been approved by the House in February 1792 and the Senate in March 1792, but was vetoed by the President on April 5, 1792. It was the first presidential veto of legislation in American history." I plan to clarify on the page. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This small section now a subsection ("First presidential veto") in the new Administration section. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elections during Washington's presidency

I tried to find this when I expanded this article a few months ago and had no luck, but hopefully we can add something eventually. He seemed pretty pleased that Adams won from what I remember. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find is in Ron Chernow's bio of Washington he writes "Martha Washington, privy to rumors of Adams's victory, pressed his hand in congratulation and said how pleased Washington was." chances are that Washington never actually disclosed his position. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Eddie891, I see you haven't yet done anything in response to this review. I've seen the automated message on your talk page stating that I've begun, and see you've edited in the days since then. You have 4 days to respond or else I fail the review. Display name 99 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: now I recognize how hasty I was in nominating this article for GA. I will try to fix the issues you pointed out in the weeks coming up (I am very busy right now), but if you think there are too many issues afflicting the page, you can fail it. Thanks for taking the time to review. currently I can not add anything, as my commitment to The Signpost comes first, but next week, I plan to have a LOT of time to edit. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, GA reviews ideally are completed within a week, but there are plenty which, for various reasons, last longer. I have no problem giving you more time to edit. Don't worry about the hastiness. By first GA nomination was John C. Calhoun, and it needed a lot of work at first. But now it's a FA. Display name 99 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the nominator, but I responded to several comments and made some edits. Great job Display name 99 with pointing out areas where the article could be improved. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Orser67, thank you for helping out with those points. Hopefully you can help Eddie get this to GA status. Be sure to leave some for him to do, though. Thanks again. Display name 99 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 and Orser67, I'm not far from passing the article. But there are still a few point above which don't seem to have been resolved yet. Here's another one. The citation style in this article is extremely inconsistent. It's generally best to cite books in full in the "Bibliography" section, and to leave the footnotes for shorter citations, including the author's name, the year of publication, and page nos. This is the case for some sources in this article, but not all. Some of the full citations needed to be moved into the Bibliography section, in order to have everything else look consistent.
I always prefer Harvard refs, but I won't insist on them. If every book is cited like 58 and 59, that would be good. Display name 99 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been slowly adding Harvard refs, however, I can't find what book "Harvey, Webb, Wooldridge" refers to. does anyone know? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, I've discovered this problem in several "Presidency of ..." articles, the Harv-ref became orphaned when the presidency portion of the main G. W. article was cut-'N-pasted to create this article. I went ahead and reconnected it. If you find others, check the Washington article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any issues with the referencing? Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, have you had a chance to look at the article lately? There are still a few things that haven't been taken care of. Any comment of mine that you see above that hasn't been struck still needs to be resolved. There are a few of those. Display name 99 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orser67 and Drdpw, I see that Eddie891 has gone on an extended wikibreak without leaving any sort of message on this page and without indicating a return date. There are still several of my comments here that need to be dealt with. One more thing is that bulleted lists are highly discouraged in articles. The list of SCOTUS judges is, in my opinion, unnecessary, as there is a link to a full article containing a list of them. The other two bulleted lists should be incorporated into paragraph format. If neither of you indicates a willingness to do this, and if Eddie does not respond, I will fail the article in 2 days' time. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to most of your points. With the exception of the lead, I think that the issues you raised have largely been addressed adequately, and the article has improved tremendously. I agree with you that the bulleted lists (slave trade legislation and con amendments) should be converted to prose and I would be willing to do that or help with it. Orser67 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also changed the SCOTUS bullet list to a paragraph, which I think is a reasonable summary of his SCOTUS appointments. Orser67 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I tried to improve the lead. Orser67 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the bulleted lists at states joining the Union, Constitutional amendments, and slave trade legislation. Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like everything has been taken care of. I'm promoting the article. Good work and congratulations to everyone involved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, good job everyone Orser67 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_George_Washington/GA1&oldid=836837807"