Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 01:39, 11 December 2018 [1].

George Washington

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC), Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC), Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article, now stable after months-long focus on grammar, context, citations, and sources. The Washington biography is an extraordinary article and very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, including his early life, the American Revolution, the Constitution, two terms as president, and more. Hence a well written, comprehensive and self-contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long but appropriate.

Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66
References needing formatting.

The above citations need formatting. When clicked, they do not point to anything. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the citations are fixed. The main problem is that the list says Ferling 2002 but the source is given as Ferling 2000. Also, citations 365, 383 and 392 do not link to a source. And there are numerous sources given which are not cited in the text, eg, McCullough, David (2001), Callahan, Charles H. (1998), Cohen, Sheldon S. (April 1991), Crowder, Jack Darrell (2017),Smith, Joseph (1991),Weber, John (2009), Gragg, Rod, Irving, Pierre M. (1862),and others in the online sources section. These should be deleted. Graham Beards (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post Graham Beards - I will work on what I can get at but some of the other nominators might need to fix these various cites.
I have to ask...is there a Wiki-tool I could download that does a automatic/mass check of the cites in an article? If I had access to such a tool it would be awesome - I could check all the references in an article without manually going over every. single. one... Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I saw your post below I manually fixed all the Ferling|2002 -> Ferling|2000 . Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shearonink paste this in your common.js subpage and after saving flush your cache (probably hold down control key and then press F5 key). Graham Beards (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

Thank you Graham Beards - that will be a big help moving forward. Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed — Much thanks Graham Beards. I have removed the unused sources from the Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed — So did I, I think we have them all now. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking much better now, thank you. There seems to be a few page numbers missing eg. 327 and 360. Could you check? Graham Beards (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits have introduced more errors; refs 2, 215, 232, 235, 242, and 359. Someone doesn't understand how the template works. Graham Beards (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed them all. G'night. Shearonink (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards & Maile66 - What are your thoughts now? Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does reference 411 need a page number? Graham Beards (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards I could not get at that particular reference to check the page # since 1)I do not have a copy in my possession and 2)there are no Google previews of any of the many many editions of that book. To safeguard this statement from being one of those factoids that "everyone knows to be true" I've removed the Kloetzel/Scotts ref, adjusted the wording and changed the sourcing to an official Smithsonian/National Postal Museum blog. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review by Factotem

[edit]

Unfortunately I've uncovered a number of issues:

  • More than one item of information in the infobox not directly sourced or supported by text in the main narrative. Examples (I have not checked every detail) include:
  • The award of the Congressional Gold Medal; — Fixed
  • Dates of office for Senior Officer of the United States Army and for Delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia (at least, a search for the text "June 15" shows that it appears only twice in the article, both times in the infobox in respect of these two offices). -- Fixed - Change info box date to June 14, consistent with text, Per Chernow, 2010, p. 186 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of the 4th para in the Early years (1732–1752) section is unsourced; — fixed
  • The text in the last para of the Crossing the Delaware section which begins "...by 4:00 A.M...." to the end of the para is unsourced; -- Fixed
  • Last para in the Sullivan expedition and Hudson River section is unsourced; -- fixed
  • Last two sentences in the Resignation section are unsourced; -- Fixed — (also clarified that it was the 'Continental Congress') -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last three sentences in the Whiskey Rebellion section are unsourced; Fixed — Item was sourced before prgh was split. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote at the end of the Farewell Address section is unsourced; -- Fixed
  • There are two instances of sentences being sourced only by footnotes (fn 's' and fn 'u'). Whilst those footnotes reference sources, I'm fairly sure the main text should also be referenced; -- {Not sure what you mean with 's' and 'u' -- Could you specify which sentences?-) -- Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of footnotes, a number of them are unsourced, for example fn 'e', fn 'q' and the last sentence of fn 's'. I would also suggest that the text "cited by Unger, 2013, p. 76." at the end of fn 'p' be formatted as a reference;
  • The ISBN reference provided for Graff's The presidents: a reference history appears to relate to the 815-page 2nd edition published by Simon and Schuster in 1997. There are a number of Worldcat entries for a 2002 edition published by Scribners. All of them have the same basic information as this one, i.e. ISBN 9780684312262, 817 pages and 3rd edition (not 7th as given in the article). Same issue later for Cooke; -- Fixed
  • The ISBN provided for Alden's George Washington, a Biography does not appear to be valid. Worldcat lists a number of entries for this book, only two of which were published in 1993 by Easton Press, neither of which g publication. publication ********************ive an ISBN number; -- ISBN number is the same as the one listed here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Gbook link is for a 1984 edition published by Louisiana State University Press, yet the article bibliography specifies a 1993 edition published by Easton Press. This is one of those cases where it is perhaps not such an issue because the pagination appears to be the same for both editions. Factotem (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN provided for Bassett's The Federalist System, 1789–1801 appears to be a copy/paste error. It's the same as that given for Banning's Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct immediately above it; -- Fixed Removed ISBN number. This is an old publication with no ISBN number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the OCLC ref for this, which is 586531, according to Worldcat. Factotem (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC) -- Done[reply]
You're repeating the same mistake of mixing details from different editions. It makes it very difficult for anyone to verify the sources. In this case, that ISBN relates to the 196-page, 1982 edition published by New American Library, while the rest of the details provided in the bibliography refer to the 234-page, 1958 edition published by Little, Brown. Factotem (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC) -- Added oclc number (564093853) for 1958 publication. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This book would not have an ISBN in 1958 since ISBN was introduced in 1970. Unless someone has an original copy, such as at a library, why put in an ISBN number? It is confusing to have an ISBN number and OCLC number. The source/information should either be removed or the ISBN/OCLC numbers should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The ISBN number currently provided is just plain wrong and should be removed. The OCLC ref does the job fine. Factotem (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC) -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now the title and ISBN link in the bibliography both relate to the 576-page 2006 edition, but the 2004 edition that you are now citing has 564 pages and ISBN 9780195170344??? Factotem (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC) -- Fixed[reply]
  • On a general point about linking to GBooks in the bibliography, this is not necessary for FAC, and can lead to inconsistencies. In addition to the above, the GBook link for Ferling's The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon leads to a 464-page edition with a different ISBN than the one provided in the article's bibliography. The ISBN number provided in the article's bibliography relates, according to Worldcat, to a 438-page edition. -- 'Fixed' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm not likely to be supporting this on sourcing. It's a huge article, with some basic errors in unsourced text that really should have been spotted and fixed before coming to FA. I've also found a number of inconsistencies just checking ISBN references in the first column of (on my screen) four. My suggestion is first, to remove all the GBooks links. You don't need them, and they lead to inconsistencies. Then check every ISBN/doi/etc link in the bibliography and make sure that the information provided against them by external authorities (I tend to use Worldcat for ISBN checking) matches the information provided in the bibliography. Minor inconsistences in editions are not such a problem, but if there's a difference in page numbering, than that could invalidate the page numbering in the references sourced to those publications. Factotem (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem, thank you for your in depth review of sources and cites. (Unbelievable analysis!) Yes, so many sources and cites. I have a feeling there are some loose ends to deal with. I am not one for scripts and such, so if and when, please let us know of any lingering issues to deal with here. Many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any FA criterias that need to be addressed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked four more entries in the bibliography and found in two cases that the GBooks links refer to different editions than those found by following the ISBN links to the relevant Worldcat entry. In both cases there is a difference in pagination between the two editions that may well impact readers' abilities to verify statements sourced to those works. I've already identified this problem with examples, and whilst the noms have fixed those specific cases, it would appear they have not taken the underlying issue on board and either checked all details in the bibliography or simply removed the GBooks links. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, Cmguy777, & Hoppyh - Factotem has an extremely valid point here. Is anyone else starting to think the GBooks links might be more trouble than they're worth? Frankly, the prospect of having to sift through every single link to check the edition cited is quite daunting to me (especially if I am the editor who ends up having to do it all lol). Any of the other nominators have thoughts on this? I'd like to help out but I just don't know when I will have the time to personally check every single one of the (at least) 126 Print & Primary sources...
In my opinion, if we are going to keep the GBooks links (and actually, as a reader, I love having a source URL for me to go to - it's all about education and reading further to me) then Every. Single. One. must be checked. And. If we agree that they all should be checked then we should probably set up something like a separate "GBooks' URLs Checking" section here on this page and the nominator who checks the URLs has to sign their name to each individual GBooks' edition-link that they have personally verified. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the G links on books that have an ISBN link. Books that are on Archive.org should be linked to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN numbers are taken from the same page that the URL links to. Whether this is consistent with the number 'World Cat' offers seems to be inconsequential, imo, because, the reader can always go to the book the URL links to, regardless of any ISBN number. From my experience virtually all reprints are of the same book, page for page. This also begs the question, whose ISBN number is correct? i.e.The one found in the google (or Amazon) book listing, or the one at World Cat? If the number found at World Cat is not consistent with the one found at google, how do we know which one is 'correct'? The important consideration is that the citation in question points to the correct page in the book linked to. URL links exist in many historical bibliographies here at WP, so I really can't see wiping them all out here because of a few inconsistencies with World Cat. Having said that, I would be more than happy to deal with any specific issues that are brought to our attention, as we have been doing all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of discrepancy, whichever ISBN is listed in the book itself - and importantly, in whichever version of the book itself was actually consulted in the editing of this article - is assumed to be the correct one. Having an ISBN for one edition and a GBooks link for a different one should be avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ISBN number should be the one used for the book that the URL links to. This is the convention we have been trying to use all along here. Again, will be happy, and eager, to deal with any such errors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We at least need to id the two refs mentioned as having an actual problem. I am happy to assist as needed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
[edit]

I would normally aim to spotcheck some 10% of the cites, which in this case would be around 40, so the following is just a sampling. First off, though, I notice that there are multiple instances of hyphens being used in citation page ranges. Per MOS, they should all be endash.

Note : Ref numbers have shifted up one in this section. i.e.former ref#341 is now ref#342.

Irving's Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 (which, according to the details provided at the archive.org page, was published "c1857", not 1869 as stated in the article bibliography): -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breen & White's A Pretty Considerable Distillery: Excavating George Washington's Whiskey Distillery

  • Ref #325 (209–20) I can't see any support in the source for the statements "Washington retired from the presidency in March 1797 and returned to Mount Vernon with a profound sense of relief. He devoted much time to his plantations and other business interests...". It looks to me that the source supports only the statement that the distillery produced its first batch of spirits in February 1797. Also, there are some four specific statements in that sentence, but they are cited to an 11-page range. I think the ref should be narrowed down to the specific page(s) which source those statements.

Vadakan's A Physician Looks At The Death of Washington

  • Ref #352 I'm not sure the source supports any of the assertions about cause of death. It's possible that Vadakan discusses the complications, but he says nothing himself about the cause of death, and instead only reports the findings of other studies.

Pogue's Shad, Wheat, and Rye (Whiskey): George Washington, Entrepreneur

  • Ref #91 Where in the source is there support for the statements that Washington reduced imported luxuries and diversified into weaving?

Fischer's Washington's Crossing

  • Ref #96 (p. 14) Where in the source is there support for the statement "Washington became a political figure and soon emerged as a leader among the social elite in Virginia"?
  • Ref #157 (p. 254) The source states 896 captured, not 850 as stated in the article, and says nothing on that page about Washington retreating across the Delaware.
  • Would have checked more of the Fischer cites, but GBook previews started limiting the pages it would show me.

OK

Comprehensiveness and reliability of sources
[edit]

I think this is a very difficult task, given the huge amount of literature on the subject, and would require a subject-matter expert to do full justice to it. The following is the best I can do, but I don't pretend for a minute that it is a thorough review:

  • I had a very quick scan through the sources last night. I did not see much to take issue with in terms of publishers; they generally seemed to be reputable, and there were no WP:SPS that I could see.
  • There is one source that does raise a question: Freedman's Washington at Valley Forge is listed as "Juvenile Nonfiction" and, at 100 pages, does not seem to me to be the type of scholarly, high-quality source that is generally expected at FAC. This is perhaps borderline; I wouldn't object to it on a lesser subject, but given the amount of scholarly attention Washington must surely have received in the literature, I wonder if there aren't better sources that could replace the three refs cited to this work.
  • The first three pages of a GBooks search for "george washington" reveals the following works have not been used as sources:
Upon reading this, I checked and saw that McDonald's American National Biography article on Washington is not listed. ‎Gwillhickers, could you send me an email, and I will reply with the text of it? It includes instructions on how to cite it. It is compact and includes discussion of bibliography, and I think you will find it useful in shoring up soft spots.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
This is likely to be a very fragmented review as I am traveling and it is hard to find time to review.
  • "He commanded Patriot forces in the new nation's vital American Revolutionary War and led them to victory over the British and their allies." What allies? The "Hessian" soldiers were leased soldiers, GB did not contract an alliance.
done Hoppyh (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " During the Revolutionary War he was a delegate to the Continental Congress which unanimously appointed him commander-in-chief of the Continental Army , leading an allied campaign to victory at the Siege of Yorktown which ended the conflict." I might pipe "Continental Army" to "the Army", and note the comma issue following.
done Hoppyh (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His seminal Farewell Address strongly warned against political partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars." I might cut "seminal"; seems to me to be puffing a bit.
done Hoppyh (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description of where he was born, I might add which county.
done Hoppyh (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reported by Parson Weems, based on the memories of people who knew him as a child,[10]" I might change "memories" to "accounts". Do we need Weems at such length? -- Done (Trimmed lengthy footnote)
I like what you've done there, except I would find a way to insert the word "father", rather than have two first names like you do. Possibly "when George's father asked him". And if the source will support it, I'd say "chopped down" here. That is what the reader expects to see, at least in my view, since I've never heard it termed any other way than "chopped down".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) -- Note : "Chopped down" is a later day distortion. The author of this account, Parson Weems, said that Washington had only "barked" the tree (removed some bark) with his hatchet, so I added a foot note to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "11 year-old" I think "11-year-old"? -- Done
  • "His half-brother Lawrence in 1743" I might cut "His half-brother". We know who he is. -- Done
  • "middle income investors, " probably should be "middle-income" -- Done
  • "Washington's brother Lawrence" I would shorten to "Lawrence". See comment two places above. -- comment. Since this is the beginning of the section I would leave "brother" in place for those readers who jump from the TOC to a given section. Will change if you still feel it should be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and this inspired Washington to begin his own pursuit of a military life.[36]" "begin his own pursuit" seems a bit wordy. Why not say "and this inspired Washington to pursue a military career". -- Done
  • "(in "Ohio Country") I think you need a "the" before "Ohio" I'm dubious about whether quotation remarks are needed around the term. You also link and explain the term early in the French and Indian War section, possibly de-link the second one and also move the explanation to first use. -- Done
  • "On March 15, 1754, Governor Dinwiddie commissioned Washington Lieutenant Colonel in the newly formed Virginia Regiment at age 21" He was 22. I don't mean to be hard, but I flagged this in my talk page comments, at which time it read "20". -- Fixed
  • Re the above, I had to go to some effort to find my previous comments because there are very few topics per talk archive page. I doubt it's an FA criterion, but I've changed the archiving henceforth (no point in changing the past ones) to about 250K per archive. If you disagree, feel free to change it, but I'd look at other articles first.
  • You misspell "Loudoun" as "Loudon". -- Fixed
  • " in charge of defending 300 miles " suggest adding "of frontier" after miles. You should probably have a conversion into kilometers. -- Done
  • "honorary Brigadier General". Is this like a brevet? Added piped link
  • "friendly-fire" friendly fire would seem more usual. -- Done
  • ".[49][f]" vs. ".[67][h][69]" I think you are inconsistent in how you deal with footnote strings like this. -- Fixed
  • Consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of "Marriage" begin with "They".
Fixed Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He won election with roughly 40 percent of the vote, defeating three other candidates with the help of several local elites." Weren't there two burgesses from each county?
  • The first two sentences of American Revolution make it sound like Washington joined the revolutionary cause out of spite. -- Agree : I add a better opening statement placing emphasis on why Washington assumed leading role. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after it's appeal" surely you mean repeal and it should be "its" not "it's". -- Fixed
  • "Parliament repealed them in 1770.[104]" suggest this be merged into the previous sentence, perhaps as ", which they were in 1770." -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parliament sought to punish the Boston Tea Party in 1774" Possibly they sought to punish Boston, or Massachusetts, or those who committed the Tea Party, but they could not punish the Tea Party itself. -- Fixed -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "blacks" in the quote from Washington just below the text which I just commented on pipe to Atlantic slave trade? -- Fixed Piped link out of place in Washington's quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Fairfax Resolves, you link Fairfax County which is probably unnecessary as you link it earlier. -- Not found : I did a thorough checking and found Fairfax County is only linked once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text about the Declaration and the toppling of the equestrian statue seems rather out of place. -- See GW Talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep plugging away at this, and hope to finish it this weekend.. I regret my tardiness, and my efforts to prevent strife, have led to the withdrawal of Hoppyh, and I hope they reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have been going along with reviewers requests from the beginning, regardless of any difference of opinion, appeals and civil discussion with reviewers. We have been making steady progress all along. You had nothing to do with this particular incident. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comment — It's astonishing that so many images used in so many articles all this time have gone unchecked. Our apologies for taking these images for granted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Suggest adding alt text -- Done
  • File:Washington_Pennsylvania_Mapb.jpg needs a US PD tag -- Fixed
This engraving apparently was part of Washington Irving's 5 Volume Series Life of George Washington Vol. I I could not find the photo in the Vol One, that covers the event. It may have been printed seperately. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Destruction_de_l'armée_de_Braddock_en_1755.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? -- Fixed Added 'US PD' tag. Removed 'PD-old-100' Image created in 1880 and is in the PD regardless of date of death of the unknown author. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:FortDuquesne.jpg needs a US PD tag. -- Fixed
  • Same with File:Martha_Dandridge_Custis_crop.jpg, -- Fixed
  • File:Couder_Yorktown_Versailles.JPG, -- Fixed
  • File:General_George_Washington_Resigning_his_Commission.jpg: given tag is incorrect. -- Fixed
  • Same with File:Constitution_Sesquicentennial_1937_Issue-3c.jpg --Fixed
  • File:MtRushmore_GW_close.jpg should have an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:George_Washington_statue.JPG, File:Virginia_State_Capitol_complex_-_Houdon's_Washington,_seen_from_the_front.jpg, File:BaltWashMonument.JPG, File:Washington_Indy_Hall.jpg
Removed all of the images named in this group from the article. I simply can't go on doing all the work many editors were supposed to have done originally. Please accept our apologies for any issues these images have created. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also still seeing a number of issues with referencing, so will oppose at this time simply because of the amount of work still required to get this ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :  We have been working on cites and sources all along. There are hundreds. If you see a specific item needing our attention please let us know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria This is such a massive article with so many individual editors making various contributions recently and over the years...if we could have some of the individual problems that you are seeing so those errors/problems.issues could then be fixed...it would be a big help. I'm not giving up yet. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1:

[edit]
  • FN324 is broken
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later
Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the infobox details don't appear to be cited anywhere
Are you asking that every item in the info-box be cited, or saying that such details in the text are not cited? We are using a 'no citations in the lede' convention, so long as these items are covered and cited in the text. Would this not also apply to the infobox? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would - anything covered and cited in the body does not need to also be cited in the infobox. However, there are some details that don't seem to be cited anywhere, such as his predecessor for senior officer. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria — Added mention of James Wilkinson, Washington's predecessor in the US Army, in the text, and provided citation. Original reference in the info-box was to the Regular US Army, not the Continental Army, as I had wrongly assumed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some odd formatting in the third para of Early years
Fixed Reformatted third and fourth paras of Early years.
  • What source is being used for inflation calculations?
If you are referring to the last paragraph in the Retirement (1797–1799) section, the source used is Dalzell & Dalzell 1998, p. 219 (citation #331) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are several places where a dollar amount "in 2018" is reported, but the following citations (as in the case you mention) are older. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of the Notes entries don't appear to be sourced.
Fixed (a). Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: (b) does not seem to need to be sourced since it is a simple mention of Old Style/New Style. I think at one time the article did use Template:OldStyleDateDY or something similar but am not sure that going back to this template (or whatever else might be available): {{OldStyleDateDY| 22 February|1732| 11 February 1731}} which would render as: 22 February 1732 [O.S. 11 February 1731] is warranted.Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not too fussed about that either way, more concerned about examples such as note e. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Looks like Note "e" had been sufficiently referenced at one point in time but that source had been removed/misaligned. Shearonink (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Note "q" as it seemed to be an observation not so much about GW and his life as comparing him with a following President. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN306 has formatting issues
I'm sorry, I tried to fix the possible issues but i think I mistook 306 for 305? (Korzi for Peabody?)...I'm giving up for now and will take another stab tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Sorry to bother you about this again but which FN is this now please?... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
311. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 349 and 405 need page numbers
Nikkimaria: Ref 349 ("Boorstin 2010, pp. 349–50") has page numbers. Ref 405 and Ref 404 both point to "The Papers of George Washington" which is an entire archive so page numbers seem unnecessary. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The numbering has changed since my comments - now 353 and 407. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - will take a look. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
353 & 407 - Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a stranded ref for Anderson 2006 of Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAnderson2006. There are 2 different Anderson books that are cited in the article - Ref 49 ("Town Destroyer") and Ref 54 ("and war was formally declared in 1756") both now point to Anderson 2007. Someone who has access to both those books and can check the ref page numbers needs to do so. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for the occurrence of 'CITEREFAnderson2006' in the bibliography mark-up and didn't find it. Nor did I find any "harv-error" warnings, once again. This is odd, as I've no doubt you've seen the warning. Perhaps it's a browser issue? In any case, Anderson, 2006 isn't used in the article so I removed it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers There are some issues with what you just did.
There are two different books on GW & the French/Indian War by Fred Anderson.
You just changed the refs to both point to Anderson 2007. BUT did you actually check the refs? How do we know which pages of which Anderson book the ref/s actually pointed to?
As to the missing warning, I think you should be able to see it if you do the following:
Go to this version of the article
Do a page search for the following words: Harv warning
You should then be able to see the following after the (maybe)errant Anderson 2006 cite in the Bibliography Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAnderson2006. CITEREFAnderson2006 will not show up in the Bibliography mark-up as it is a warning generated by the Wikicode that something is wrong with the way things are written and something needs to be fixed.
That's all. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still no harv warnings. There were only two refs for Anderson, 2007. None for Anderson, 2006. I didn't change anything other than to remove Anderson, 2006, from the Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you removed the Anderson 2006 but my point is that there were two books by Anderson, I just want to make sure that the two refs in the article for his work are from his 2007 book, that the two works haven't somehow gotten co-mingled. I've seen it happen before with refs around Wikipedia. I don't have access to these books, I can't confirm the pages & referencing.
Checking for "Harv warning" and "Harv error" has personally saved me many times from publishing my referencing errors on articles that use Harvard referencing. Maybe it's some gadget I have enabled?...I don't know why it's showing up for me and not you - not trying to beat a dead horse here just trying to be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never was any doubt of that -- you've been a tremendous help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the entries in Book sources are books -- Which?
Fixed. I found eight errant entries. Rather than creating a separate "Magazine/Newspaper" section, I have altered the "Book sources" header. Please adjust if needful. Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Washington, Presidential Term Limits, and the Problem of Reluctant Political Leadership" is missing author
Fixed. Added Bruce G. Peabody as author. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an ellipsis in the midst of the Book sources list? Not clear as to what you mean.
Fixed. The ellipsis was a placeholder for sources whose authors start with the letter O - have removed it. The hidden comment for "O" remains. Shearonink (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author listed for George Washington's War on Native America appears to be incorrect, Fixed
  • same with George Washington the Christian, check for others -- (Johnston work has correct name)
  • Looking at this more closely, there seems to be some inconsistency in whether the author is credited as Johnson or Johnston or Johnstone. You say Johnston here, the article says Johnson, which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This author's name is misspelled all over the internet and is even pencilled in incorrectly - apparently by various librarians - on Google Book printed source-books as "Johnstone" and that error is then repeated in Google Books listings, etc. The man himself spelled his name as Johnson as evidenced by the signed "author's statement" found here. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tobias Lear work is a letter from an edited compilation - formatting is inconsistent
Nikkimaria Tried to fix it but can't get the coding - publication-year, publication-date, origyear/orig-year - as set out in Template: cite book to work. The letter was written in 1799, this Volume of the "Writings' was published in 1893. Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Washington Irving 1869 Life of George Washington Vol. 5 source and made changes to the Tobias Lear section. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I would like your expertise on this particular cite. Tobias Lear wrote the letter about GW's death in 1799, but it was published in 1893 in a book written by Washington Irving - is there any way to make the reference say both things? I tried and tried and couldn't figure out the coding...
Right now it reads as
Lear, Tobias (1799). "Tobias Lear to William Augustine Washington December 15, 1799(The Writings of George Washington, Volume 14)". In Ford, Worthington Chauncey. The writings of George Washington; collected and ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford. G. Putnam & Sons. p. 247.
I have the publication date hidden in the code, it looks like this
* {{cite book|last1=Lear|first1=Tobias|editor-last = Ford |editor-first=Worthington Chauncey|title=The writings of George Washington; collected and ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford|year=1799|chapter=Tobias Lear to William Augustine Washington December 15, 1799(The Writings of George Washington, Volume 14)|publisher= G. Putnam & Sons|<!-- publication-year: 1893|-->url=https://books.google.com/?id=XqE3y9LZmfgC&pg=PA257|page=247|ref=harv}}
If you could figure out which cite template & which coding that would be used to say both years - the year the letter was written and the year it was published - that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to use multiple templates - have the ref be "{{cite letter}} In {{cite book}}" (appropriately filled out). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'll play around putting those two templates together. By the way, is there any kind of WP page that lays out this type of situation, maybe with examples? I've looked but sometimes I just cannot find things around here... Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) \[reply]
If it won't keep it out of FA, you might consider using a citation template for contributions within books. Usually we don't mix formats, but I've found citation seems more flexible than cite when it comes to contributions.--02:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, I'll take a look at that tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. THANKS Wehwalt - that worked. See this edit - I had to use "citation". Left a hidden note behind so folks will know *why*...frankly, I spent quite a bit of time trying out various cite template and I just don't see any other way to do it. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kazin: should cite specific entry
Fixed. Yes, Kazin was the editor of the entire Encyclopedia but Genovese was the entry's author. Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Brumwell book gives a publisher's location and most others do not. You should be consistent one way or the other. "Great Britain" seems a bit general to be listed as the location of a publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brumwell, 2012, is among my collection of books, and it lists the location as London, Great Britain. However, the inclusion of locations in the source listings were indeed exceptional and were recently removed by another nominator. Upon double checking I found two other sources that still had the location listed, so along with the location in Brumwell's listing they have been removed also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a concerted effort to remove locations from the sources. Hoppyh (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other FA criteria

[edit]

Is the George Washington article comprehensive, well-written, neutral ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've all dealt with and fixed the various issues put forth on this page so far. I am sure there are other improvements that could be made - looking forward to further posts from reviewers. Shearonink (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously can't speak for other reviewers, but there do appear to be a few of my points so far unaddressed - for example, the sourcing for inflation calculations, or a missing US PD tag on

File:The_Capture_of_the_Hessians_at_Trenton_December_26_1776.jpeg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC) -- Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: -- Could you be more specific about "inflation", and overall, so we can get right to it? Many thanks for your 'X-ray' vision. :-)  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are several points in the article where you say "$X in 2018" but where the following ref is from some point before 2018 (eg. "worth about £40,000 in contemporary currency (or about $10 million in 2018)" has a 2003 source); this suggests that either there is some 2018 source omitted, or that the date presented should be amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Just wanted to say "Thank you" for all your time and attention to this FA Review - it is muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source link for the US Dollar: Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount - 1774 to Present Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source link for the UK Pound: Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1270 to Present Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relative value for currency should be US Dollar to US Dollar and UK Pound to UK Pound, unless there is a source that goes from UK Pound to US Dollar or US Dollar to UK Pound. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a historical narrative, perhaps we should just leave inflation and conversion figures out of the narrative altogether and spare ourselves all the business and math issues involved. Now we have an unconventional citation and a URL stuck in the text. Palmer, Flexner and Rose, the sources used for the narrative at this juncture, mention no inflation figures, so perhaps we shouldn't either. It's generally understood that dollar rates have inflated over the last 250+ years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first, I agree with you! Also, IMHO it be would wise to delete the links to Google Books; I have tested several here and the editions and page numbers do not match. There is nothing wrong in just using reliable paper sources for our articles; they are almost always more scholarly than websites. If the nominators insist on keeping the Google Books links, I think that this nomination will be archived because of the amount of work that it still needs. Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as to both. Hoppyh (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the reference that asked for. I am for editor concensus. It is called the relative value of money. It gives a good impression on how much Arnold got, probably almost 1 million dollars by today's money value. The reference I suppose could be put in an SFN format, but it looks like the concensus is not to have real value of money in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We appear to have two FA reviewers suggesting removal of these links. I’ll be happy to assist with this removal. I suggest we split up the alphabet using the authors’ last names. I could take t - z. Please advise. Hoppyh (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're over reacting a bit here. If we simply use the ISBN number on the page that the URL links to there should be no problem. At this point I believe there are only a few source listings that need tending to (no one has pointed to anything specific lately), so let's just fix anything that still may need fixing and move on. This should not be a big deal. I certainly hope that the nomination won't be torpedoed simply on the basis of a few remaining URL/ISBN issues -- we have come this far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviewers have spoken, and IMO we should address their objections, so that the nom is not archived. Hoppyh (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One last appeal. The greater bulk of the url links are fine. They are a great aid to both readers and editors. There is no call for a major change in the article based on any url issues that may be remaining. We should at least try to fix any remaining links before we make a major change like this. What about web-site sources (i.e. non-book sources) -- they all have URLs. Let's not take the quick and easy way out and try to fix any remaining URL's before we go so far as to gut the bibliography of all links. I will of course abide by the consensus of all reviewers, but no one has actually said, remove all URL's or else. If the effort proves to be an impossible uphill battle, then okay, we'll just wash our hands of the whole business. We should make one last effort before we resort to making major changes. Are there that many specific URL issues actually remaining? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers have specifically objected to the use of Google books links. IMO, we need to respond to that objection. Hoppyh (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, Maile66, Factotem, Wehwalt, and Graham Beards: As I said, I will abide by reviewer consensus. They did not make demands or ultimatums. I am hoping they will consider the fact that most urls have no issues and are willing to let us fix any remaining URL/ISBN issues. If not, then okay, we'll just remove all the urls and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting all URLs be removed. I have suggested removing the GBook URLs on the basis that they are not a FAC requirement and often generate the inconsistencies I have identified. It's not a problem if you retain them. It is a problem if they link to different editions of the book than the rest of the bibliographical information relates to and those editions have different page numbers. And as far as I am concerned there will very definitely be a problem if you "simply use the ISBN number on the page that the URL links to". Presumably the bibliographical information came from the actual, physical books used to research this article. We've established that, for whatever reason, the GBook URLs don't always match that information, so the idea of declaring them to be the authoritative source is completely wrong, and somewhat worrying. Retain the GBook URLs by all means, but if you do the information they provide really needs to be consistent with the bibliographical information presented in the article, and someone needs to go through every link and check that is true. Factotem (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to do whatever is necessary. We've already dealt with a number of these issues successfully, and I am willing to continue dealing with any others that may remain. Again, at this point the greater bulk of URL/Gbook links are fine, so dealing with any remaining ones hopefully is not a big issue for anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of lost here on why I got pinged. A lot has happened here since I originally posted about a handful of citation formats that I believe got fixed. Whatever the other issues are, others can deal with. Gwillhickers I'm all for giving you the time to correct what you need to correct. In whatever way it needs to be corrected. Just scanning this page, it looks like you ran into some conflicting sourcing info. For future information (or here, if it helps), one of the sources I really like for old books is HathiTrust. Maybe you already know about it. Sometimes they have the same books as Google, but my personal preference is HathiTrust, just for accessibility on my end. Don't know if it helps you, but it looks like even they are confused. They list the author as William J. Johnstone, but the scanned book clearly says it's Johnson. — Maile (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnstone, William J. (1919). George Washington, the Christian. The Abingdon Press.
Insert :Yes, both Hathi Trust and Google got the spelling of Johnson's name wrong. Our Bibliography, however, is consistent with the spelling in the actual book. Not a perfect world, but no call for radical changes in our Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry to ping you to this discussion again Maile66, just wanted to get this on-record so I am re-posting what I posted above in the Round 1 section (plus some additional info):
"This author's name is misspelled all over the internet and is even pencilled in incorrectly - apparently by various librarians - on Google Book printed source-books as "Johnstone" and that error is then repeated in Google Books listings, etc. The man himself spelled his name as Johnson as evidenced by the signed "author's statement" found here."
These pencilled-in William Jackson Johns[t]on[e] additions by an anonymous person or anonymous persons are not verifiable but the following is:
  • The title pages of the book have "William J. Johnson" as the author
  • the signed author's statement found on page 15 of this book clearly has the signature of W.J. Johnson and
  • The Catalog of Copyright Entries: Books. Part, group 1, Volume 16, Issue 2 published by the Library of Congress Copyright Office in 1919 says on Page 754 that the author's name is: "Johnson, William Jackson".
I think maybe we should not rely on a single source that contradicts the name that is available in all the other sources. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Lol, I have just now done some deep-diving on the spelling issue of Johnstone vs. Johnson.
NEW news and the laugh is on me:
Sometime between 1913 and 1928 Johnson changed the spelling of his name from Johnson (in the 1913 edition of his Lincoln book) to Johnstone (in the 1928/Sixth Printing of his Lincoln book), see this link. Cripes, I had to do a LOT of digging to get to that. So. Both spellings are right and wrong! It's a perfect world! All kidding aside, yes, his name is both, but we should probably rely on the last/best information. Johnstone was this author's preferred spelling of his last name. Case settled, I'll fix it in the article. Now g'night Gracie. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The FA reviewer above has repeated the complaint. IMO, we need to address this by removing the Google books links. Hoppyh (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The FA reviewer above said '"Retain the GBook URLs by all means, but if you do the information they provide really needs to be consistent with the bibliographical information presented in the article, and someone needs to go through every link and check that is true." I am more than willing to do this, hopefully with the same enthusiastic help we saw dealing with ALT statements. Again, the bulk of url/Gbook links are fine. Another reviewer has just said he/she is willing to give us the time to correct any remaining issues. Let's do this, aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes. I am willing to do my part to review the Gbooks URLs - I actually think it is cool to be able to read the source material for an article's content - not everyone has access to a physical library of books & GBooks are a way to introduce readers to another source of information. However, I cannot get around to doing anything on this until maybe sometime Tuesday. Gwillhickers if you can start in on this and maybe set up a section so we can all see the progress and not duplicate each other's efforts that would be awesome - I have to sign off for a while - Real Life interferes. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Wikipedia is not real life?   :-)  Yes, I have been going through the sources, and upon encountering any issues I will knock them off in due course. Anyone that has found specific issues/sources that need our attention, please inform us. Many thanks for the patience that our reviewers have extended to us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you could list out the GBooks links you've fixed in a section on this page that would help other editors doing work on the article after you. I'll list out any I fix or check when I can sit down and work on the links for a decent length of time - I don't think any of us want to duplicate another editor's efforts... Shearonink (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: based on the responses when I asked about this issue on the FAC TP a while ago, the problem is where different editions have different pagination. There are instances where the ISBN in a GBooks URL differs from the ISBN given in the article bibliography, but the two editions have the same pagination. Personally I think this is an unacceptable discrepancy that should be rectified, but the consensus was that it's no reason to oppose a candidate, and can be allowed to stand. Factotem (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my desire to fix these discrepancies, or get them out of the Bibliography of a FA, but at the same time, I don't see that this by itself is a reason to oppose a nomination, all things considered. It seems all we need at this point are any specific listings with such a (or any) problem that may remain in the Bibliography. If a given listing presents us with a problem we can not fix, (unlikely) we can always eliminate it and find another source to take its place. As I said before, I am not one for scripts, so I have been checking the individual listings one by one, making sure urls link up to the correct version. Needless to say, help along these lines has been greatly appreciated and welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at FAC TP is a reasonable reading of current FA criteria. I am happy to help remove the discrepancies on an as-identified basis. IMHO, removal of Google books links is preferable to an “isbn audit”. Hoppyh (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your concern here but several reviewers have given us much of their time and effort finding URL/ISBN issues while other editors have likewise given much of their time and effort fixing them, so it would have seemed very inappropriate to throw all this work out the window over a few remaining sourcing issues. I am currently going through the source listing and have found and fixed one issue, while removing another single use source (w/ two printings / isbn numbers) used to cite a simple statement already covered by two other well noted sources. Between the lot of us we should be able to clear any remaining issues up in little time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any Google link and ISBN generated link(s) should match. Why have two links to the same book in the article ? I think all books found on Archive.org should have a web link. Books dated before 1970 have no ISBN. A Google link or Archive.org link for books that have no ISBN generated link(s) would be acceptable. There apparently is no editor consensus on this matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know of any listing that has two URL links for one book. Since most of us have been working with reviewers to fix linking/ISBN issues, and since the Washington article became a GA with most of these links, there has been a long standing consensus to keep them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting at the beginning of the Bibliography I have been inspecting and fixing any ISBN issues. I am currently up to the 'F' section of the alphabetized listing in our Bibliography. I should point out at this time that some books have different ISBN numbers for paper-back and hard-cover. e.g. I own Chernow, 2010, Washington, a Life. In the front of my hard-cover issue are two ISBN numbers: one for paper-back and one for hard-cover, but it's the exact same book. Most goggle listings do not specify hard-cover or soft-cover. Linking to either one of these books should not be an issue, so long as our citations correspond with page numbers used. Having said that, we still should make efforts to make sure the URL used in our Bibliography links up to the google listing that matches the ISBN listing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple ISBN numbers

[edit]

Upon reviewing the Bibliography I am encountering various Google pages that ofter multiple printings of various given books, with a different ISBN for each. Here's an example. Page down to Other editions: There are six other versions, with four different ISBN numbers. Further, when you go to the copyright page of any given book you'll find yet another ISBN number for the paper-back version. At this point it's little wonder why there were so many discrepancies. I believe all that most readers expect of us is that we get the author's name, year date and citation page number right. Perhaps a solution to our 'situation' is to not bother with ISBN numbers, and simply keep the URL to the book that was used to cite a given statement. This way when the readers go to the google book/page, they will encounter Other editions and they can look into the different versions with different ISBN numbers — that is, if they're even inclined to mull through all the different printings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you've changed the ISBN ending 21148 for Dalzell's book in the article bibliography to the one given in the GBooks URL that ends 36289, but:
  • The year of publication given in the bibliography is 1998.
  • The 300-page 1998 edition is listed by both Worldcat and GBooks with ISBN ending in 21148, i.e. the information before your edit.
  • Now, following your edit, both GBook link and ISBN links relate to the 320-page edition published in 2000, yet the bibliography still gives 1998 as the year of publication.
Can I ask why you have chosen the GBook ISBN ending in 36289 for the 2000 edition in preference to the original ISBN of 21148 for the 1998 edition, rather than change the GBooks URL to point to the 1998 edition? Given your previous question of "If we simply use the ISBN number on the page that the URL links to there should be no problem", I'm a little concerned that this is what you have done here. Please tell me I'm wrong about this. Which of these editions was actually used to research the article? As for your statement that readers expect the citation page number to be correct, information in this article is cited to p. 219 of that source, but given that there is a 20-page difference between these two editions, can you guarantee that p. 219 is the same in both editions? Finally, I believe ISBN numbers (or OCLC refs or other, appropriate identifiers) are mandatory for FAC, whereas GBook links are not. Factotem (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck last sentence above – it's not clear that ISBNs are in fact mandatory/expected. See discussion on the TP. Factotem (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the ISBN directed link needs to match the year of the source that is used in the article. There needs to be ISBNs in the article for books that have ISBNs. It should either be 1998 or 2000, not both. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No where in the Bibliography are there two ISBN's for any book. If I've made an error with ascribing an ISBN number, it of course should be corrected, but given the multiple ISBN numbers for many of the publications, it seems we will forever be trying to get all the URL's matched up with the 'correct' ISBN. As we've seen, even Google and Haiti Trust are given to errors or discrepancies. Are ISBN numbers actually required by FA criteria? I was hoping we could simplify matters by eliminating ISBN numbers by just using the URL that points to the books we are using in the sources and citations, simply providing the author's name, year and page numbers. This situation is no doubt characteristic of not just the Washington bibliography. Even if we eliminated all the URL's there is no guarantee we are employing the right ISBN number for the exact publication we are citing. Will continue in the effort to fix any remaining issues in our Bibliography. If ISBN numbers are not required by FA criteria I would recommend we just get rid of them and simply employ URL's to the books we are actually using for sourcing and citing. Trying to do what is best for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was books that have ISBNs, those ISBNs should be in the article. Books that do not have ISBNs should have Google links or Archive.org links. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no ISBN, an OCLC number can be used. These can be found using the search facility here (like ISBNs they have different numbers for different editions/years/countries, etc). Google books link don't work in all territories, so use with care. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that Google is showing errors and discrepancies; it makes sense to me that different editions of the same book will have different ISBNs. The discrepancies are all in the article's bibliography. I'm having difficulty understanding why there can be "no guarantee we are employing the right ISBN number for the exact publication we are citing". Editors must have had access to the book at some stage in order to cite it. Whether that was the actual physical book, or a GBook preview, the correct ISBN number can be and should have been taken directly from that source. How is that so difficult? Factotem (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Are ISBN numbers actually required by FA criteria?" That's a good question. I've raised this on the TP. Maybe the @FAC coordinators: can shed some light on this too. Factotem (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why ISBN numbers are so controversial. Archive.org currently has the actual book that the readers can have access too. ISBN numbers give the reader the opportunity to verify the source. Archive.org is better that ISBNs because there is a direct link to the actual source. OCLC World Cat might list multiple copyright dates. This article in my opinion has too many sources. Well-written, Comprehensive, and Neutral have yet to be FA reviewed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I will continue checking the sources and ISBN numbers. At this point it would seem there are few left to deal with. We should clear this hurdle before getting involved in other areas. In regard to "too many sources", I try to keep an eye out for any single–use sources, i.e.a source that is only used to cite one statement. Just recently I have removed two such sources and have replaced them and their respective cites with other more notable sources. But let's remember that the number of sources is not really an issue. Right now we should concentrate on any remaining ISBN issues and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the situation we should be aware of when checking ISBN numbers, using one source as an example. Currently the URL link for Dalzell, 1998 gives this ISBN number: 9780195121148, for a book with 300 pages. However, when you click on View Book the google web-page gives this ISBN number: 9780199923755 for a book with 320 pages. This is the error about Google I was referring to above. When you click on View book it should be for the same book. Sometimes I change the URL to the shortest one, which occurs when you click on About this book, which can also yield a different ISBN number. Part of our problem was not being aware of the different ISBN numbers that can occur on one Google/source page. i.e.An editor finds the page, clicks on view book to do research, writes down the ISBN number, but when he/she clicks on About this book to return to the front cover page and copies the URL, it links to a different version with a different ISBN number. As I said, this is no doubt a situation that has occurred in other Bibliographies. Just so we all know, when you click on View book or About this book, it often takes you to a different version with a different ISBN number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, comprehensive, and neutral

[edit]

Can other factors Well-written, Comprehensive, and Neutral be reviewed for FA ? Whether the article passes or fails it would help to have a general idea of any article improvements in narration. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love checking and diving deep into references as much as the next editor... but if the FA reviewers could perhaps delve into the well-written/comprehensive/neutral aspects a little bit it sure would be a nice break to have something else to work on. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things like 'well-written', 'comprehensiveness' and 'neutrality' are ideas that are often subjective, with opinions than can vary among individual editors and reviewers. The important consideration is that no major details and important context is left out of the narrative. Given the number of knowledgeable editors who have contributed to and scrutinized the Washington biography, it would seem at this point all the important points have been well covered. Of course I speak with a nominator's bias, but I believe we've accomplished this overall. Let's see what the reviewers may say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the compliment, but am a bit ill-at-ease with this comment. To be clear, there is no presumption on the nominators’ part that FA criteria has been met, and there is no claim of proprietorship. We don’t have a vote here, and we best be prepared to address the good faith recommendations of reviewers. Hoppyh (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, a lead, appropriate structure, consistent citations, Media, and Length are Featured Article criteria. All that is needed is confirmation from FA reviewer(s) that the George Washington article has met all of the criteria. Any areas of concern by FA reviewer(s) could benefit the article. So far well-written, comprehensive, neutral have not been addressed by FA reviewers. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I hope Wehwalt returns, for one, and others join us as well. GW represents a consequential figure and the article deserves the attention after the work that’s been done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a friendly comment about the important criteria. -- Agree with both of you here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article well-written, comprehensive, and neutral ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments from Victoria

[edit]
  • I'm quite well-read in GW's early life and & the French and Indian War years. I strongly urge using Walter O'Meara's Guns at the Forks. Though older than Anderson's Crucible it remains a respected source. I note there are web sources in that section, which should be removed given the amount of scholarship available. Finally, a facsimile of GW's diary exists, (I have it, it doesn't have an ISBN, it's short and I'd be happy to scan and make available but not in purview of FAC), which is a primary source but can be used for quotes - it's very interesting. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The complete diaries are available at The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition - Diaries 1748-1799. I can partially see your point about published/print sources but I also think that just because a reference is a web source doesn't negate the verifiable facts it contains and doesn't make it ipso facto somehow unreliable... Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Victoriaearle: — Thanks for checking in. Shearonink has a valid point, but if you can intoduce a better source, in place of a web-site source, it would be most welcomed. I don't, and I suspect others don't, own O'Meara's work, but if you can cite any statement with it, by all means do so. We are in the middle of a nomination, so if you have anything to add to the narrative also I would recommend that you keep it simple, as to avoid major changes at this point in time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, no I didn't intend to add to the narrative/text/article; the comment was made to suggest a better source to use for the French & Indian War section/s. I don't own it either; checked it out of the library & read quite a few years ago. I might do a full review; am picking at it at the moment and deciding. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • Try to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE - the first section has a lot of blue that can maybe be rearranged elsewhere.
Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was a subject of the British Empire, under the reign of George II" - I get why this is here, but I'm not convinced it's necessary.
It provides biographical context for Washington and colonial life at that point in his life. If you feel this is something that needs to be eliminated, then okay, but it only involves a phrase and, imo, is appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this information. Not necessary. The link to British America adds enough context to Washington being a subject of the British Empire. Also, did the colonists have the same rights as persons who lived in Britain. For example, there was a colonial militia. The colonists were not part of the British regulary army. I.E. Washington had been denied to wear the Red. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link to British America gives us enough context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The education section is a bit muddled and I haven't looked at the sources to sort it out. Basically he was home schooled or didn't go to a school, taking lessons from a local schoolmaster. The bit about the education spanning eight years makes it sound more formal than it was and the bit about Appleby doesn't make sense. Were other of his siblings sent to England for a formal education? If so, that should be mentioned.
Clarified, by adding the term "informal" before education spanning eight years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider switching paragraphs to lead with education > his father was alive when he gave his son lessons, & then the one about his father's death, inheritance, etc.
  • The focus in "Early years" section should be on the early years; not seeing the need for the paragraph about land purchases at this point. Lay the foundation of the surveying - which is why Dinwiddie sent him to the Forks of the Ohio, and perhaps pick up the purchasing later, although the source that section is being cited to, [2] is not a reliable source.
Early years section designates 1732–1752, the first 20 years of Washington's life. If you prefer, we can make a separate sub-section for Surveying and remove the year date designation. Also, I'll see what I can do about replacing the Mount Vernon citation here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed and readded edited information on the Land holdings. Chronology of the article is kept. No need to talk about Washington D.C. before there was even the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call, esp since after mulling through four sources (Chernow-2010, Ferling-2009, Flexner-1974 and Randall-1997), I could not find any grand total of land purchases. The closet I came to this was Flexner, p.56, who mentioned several land purchase, one of which only amounted to 30,000 acres. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • New section - @Cmguy777:, directly above Victoriaearle feels that the Mount Vernon cite isn't a reliable source, and I tend to agree, since there is no author's name or a list of sources cited. I see you've only moved the information to a newly created section, under the Legacy section, this after you said we didn't need to mention the capitol, etc. Further, Washington's legacy has more to do with the Revolution and his presidency, not his business dealings. Recommend removing this section and returning the information to the original location, or simply removing the part cited by a questionable source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend moving the information back to the Early years section. Faulty source. Then the information should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link tuberculosis, especially in long article like this. Watch out for similar low value links.
Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Washington inherit Mt. Vernon?
Added 1754, the year Lawrence's daughter died, two years after his wife had died. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is wordy and can be tightened, i.e it's not strictly necessary to say how old he was in each sentence and there are ways improve flow.
Grammar has been gone over by multiple editors just before and during the review, and realistically, there is no end to opinions about the best flow, etc. Recommend we concentrate on errors, lack of citations, etc, and, as you pointed out, redundancy e.g. about age. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing - there's really no need to use the 1936 Fitzpatrick if Chernow is being used, suggest eliminating it or swapping for something more current.
Both new and old sources are used throughout the article. If there are instances where a Fitzpatrick citation can be cited by Chernow, or whomever, it's not really a pressing issue in terms of FA criteria, and would require much time and research to effect throughout an article of such complexity. Recommend using existing cites and focusing on any outright errors, FA criteria issues, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
  • At this point there have been numerous opinions along these lines. Bearing in mind that even Pulitzer Prize works have room for improvement, and given the space limitations for the many topics that must be comprehensively covered in an encyclopedia article, we should just concentrate on any pressing FA criteria issues, imo. This is not to say that your ideas for improvement and respective edits are not welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are specific examples of clearly inadequate prose, please bring them to our attention. Chances are, the editor who wrote the passage in question will be happy to deal with it, if one of us doesn't get to it first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insert: I incorporated the older version article to the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My sense is that this isn't quite ready and there's more to be done that can reasonably be done during a FAC nomination. I've only read a the first few sections of the article, made a few copyedits here and here, but general issues that need to be addressed are the following:

  • In my view doesn't satisfy (WP:FACR 1.a. (prose) - the article is wordy and every extraneous word needs to be trimmed throughout. Because the article is long, it's not realistic to expect a line-by-line prose review from reviewers, but a prose review would be reasonable after a thorough copyedit. Examples only: "His brother Lawrence was an Adjutant General at the time of his death which inspired Washington to pursue his military career" > I cannot parse this sentence, so I had to look at sources and it seems that GW wanted Lawrence's post. Next sentence, "He was trained in musters and drills before Robert Dinwiddie appointed him adjutant, first to the Southern district in December 1752 and later to the Northern and Eastern districts as well." > previous subject is Lawrence so the pronoun antecedent here is Lawrence. Things like this need checking throughout. Also there are non-sequitors such as "His mother could not afford the cost of England's Appleby Grammar School,[20]", which needs to be explained (I had to follow the link to the school expecting a colonial school, found it was in England and guessed that there was something missing. Also direct quotes need attribution; there's a direct quote at the end of the para without attribution and I fixed one in the small section I edited.
  • 1.c (well researched)- for an article like this we need the best sources; sources such as Freeman 1948, Fitzpatrick 1936, this web source should be swapped out for the highest quality and more recent sources, of which there has be quite a lot for George Washington. Keep in mind that well researched doesn't mean we have to include every single source that exists but rather conduct a thorough literature review and use the best that exists while eliminating others.
  • 1.d (neutral) - there's definitely a hagiographic tone in the few sections I read, i.,e he wasn't a military ambassador, (nor do the sources cited verify this fact) but rather an envoy with a letter; the thirty years later quote needs to be put in context (he was sent to navigate the wilderness because of his surveying & wilderness experience); making peace with the Six Nations is an overstatement; instead it was an overture, he impressed the Half-King enough to secure the escort of four warriors. That Washington ordered the first shot in the war seems hard to verify, (plus why the "former war"?)
  • I got confused a few times, dipped into sources for clarification and found some evidence of close paraphrasing, which will need to be eliminated. Here, "precision and considerable force" are Chernow's words; I attributed, which is one way to deal with an issue like that. Further on, article says "sent him to confront French forces at Pittsburgh", source says "Virginia Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie sent 21-year-old Major George Washington of the Virginia Regiment on a mission to confront the French forces". Again, these are examples only.
  • Regarding the specific points above; linking is still problematic (cherry tree incident is directly relevant to GW & should be retained); education is still muddled a bit; I didn't know that he had purchased such a large amount of land and think that actually is worth retaining - the options are to weave throughout the narrative and mention periodically as he gained more land or to devote a section to it. Prose, sourcing, etc, I've mentioned.

In Wikipedia terms this article is heavy lifting on a grand scale - it's as heavy as it can get. There's also a truism that it's hard to get Big Articles through FAC, so I have nothing but respect trying and getting this far. My advice is to take the issues mentioned in this FAC and work on them throughout the article, go to peer review (which is exactly for these types of issues) and expect eventually to be back here. Right now it's not quite ready. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

I read through part of this long article. Based on what I've seen, it is not ready for FA. Wordy prose ("spring, summer and fall of ...", basic formatting errors, and a slightly irritating hagiographic tone. Kudos for trying to bring this up in quality but this is definitely not there yet. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first reviewer to make this observation; Gwillhickers’ response to Victoriaearle above was essentially that work has been done and you should limit your review to copy editing. I think this is improper. Gwillhickers, who has 40% of the edits to the article, is certainly aware of previous work on the prose, which is predominantly his own, but such a suggestion about the reviewers’ role is out of bounds per WP:OWN. Hoppyh (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is hagiographic in tone. I have tried to reduce narration and making the article more objective. I have met resistance along the way. Even non controversial areas, that could be reduced have been met with resistance. The article should neither be antagonistic nor hagiographic, but rather neutral. All I can do is highly recommend that editors work together, have common goals, establish a neutral tone, and get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much work on grammar and prose has been done over the last couple of months by various editors, so if there are issues that still need attention I'm certain all of us will accept responsibility equally like adults and move forward. General comments are welcomed but it would help if reviewers pointed at any specific issues also – at least a few so we can get a general idea of what you feel is inappropriate. All of us have been cooperating with reviewers, but if we should have questions or a difference of opinion, which is rare, I'm hoping this is received in the spirit it is offered and we can discuss it without getting personally offended, as all reviewers have done when such discussions occur. Much thanks for your review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have been faced with big tasks before during this review, and as experienced editors we have met those tasks in little time, esp when we work together. It is my hope we will get through any remaining issues now in little time. As a general comment, Washington is noted for (very) many accomplishments, so simply making general statements about these things can sometimes seem hagiographic overall. At the same time, if there is any unneeded embellishment we of course should remove it or edit the statement(s) in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the nomination

[edit]

As pointed out by two reviewers there is appreciable work to be done yet. If there are no objections I am going to ask @Ian Rose: to close the nomination so we can get back to work without the worry of time. As we've come this far, it seems it will not take much longer to get over the last few hurdles and resubmit the nomination. Many thanks to reviewers for their perseverance and patience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. However, I feel that editors should have the same goals: reducing hagiographic language; and reducing article size; especially in non-controverial areas. Editors need to work together to get George Washington to FA status. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is appropriate. My apologies to nominators for having realized this only after the fact. I do agree about reducing article size and adjusting the tone. I am not optimistic about the prospects of an consensus to do so. I would not advise to attempt it otherwise, as past futility is quite evident. Hoppyh (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wordy and hagiographic prose was the issue, not article size, per size guidelines. As long as we address these issues, water will find its own level in terms of article size. Yes, as I said, we need to work together, however, let's bear in mind that differences of opinions will sometimes occur - we've all been there - but this doesn't mean there can be no compromises made. The only thing that stands in the way of compromise is an unwillingness to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victory made the following comments : "In my view doesn't satisfy (WP:FACR 1.a. (prose) - the article is wordy and every extraneous word needs to be trimmed throughout. Because the article is long, it's not realistic to expect a line-by-line prose review from reviewers, but a prose review would be reasonable after a thorough copyedit." "In Wikipedia terms this article is heavy lifting on a grand scale - it's as heavy as it can get. There's also a truism that it's hard to get Big Articles through FAC, so I have nothing but respect trying and getting this far." I would call that article reduction. Again, there already is disagreement concerning article reduction. We have to be in agreement the article needs to be reduced. This has been a problem before. What good is editing when editors are not allowed to reduce the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle mentions a long article in terms of conducting a review, not in terms of reduction simply because it's long. Again wordy and any hagiographic prose can be reduced or eliminated, and this will reduce article size, but this doesn't mean we can't add other information, as you have done all along. And "editors are not allowed" is nonsense. We have this thing called consensus something that none of us has gone against when there is a clear consensus. What stands in the way of cooperation are veiled accusations as in your last sentence, a refusal to compromise, and not knowing when to drop the stick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Although I didn't mention page size in my comments/oppose I do think the page is dauntingly long. The reason I didn't mention it is because I didn't get far enough to have a sense of what can be cut, but a good rule of thumb is to try to adhere to 10,000 words (I've been guilty of bringing a few 10,000+ word articles through FAC but they underwent tremendous structural work to stay at barely over 10,000 words). We do have some pop culture ones that are very long, I believe Elvis Presley is one, but I'm not keen on overly long articles. The points to remember are that articles like these are rarely read from top to bottom; instead readers tend to dip into one or two section and then click away or come back later so every section counts; be ruthless about adhering to summary style throughout; take advantage of daughter articles to shove material into (remember, it's not a paper encyclopedia); and keep a strict focus on the biographical details, because this page is the biography. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoriaearle for your clarification. In my opinion, there needs to be concensus the article needs to be reduced without further additions. What then would be the purpose of article reduction ? As long as editors agree the article needs to be reduced, then editors can choose areas that need to be reduced by concensus. I will drop the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, the illegitimate owner of the article, will not hear of any reduction here, in the fraudulent name of context. The article remains a GA, and the G stands for Gwillhickers. Hoppyh (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expressing an opinion doesn't amount to ownership, so you need to drop that stick and behave like an adult. You can bang on the same tin pot all you like but your incessant accusations are not supported by my edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinions can vary over the best article size, and I've seen much material chopped away just to satisfy a page length guideline. Remember that guidelines allows for exceptions for extraordinary articles. We should appreciate that this is not a biography about 'Congressman Smith', but for a central figure in early American history, inter-connected with many topics. i.e.We shouldn't attempt to squeeze a size-ten foot into a size-six shoe just for the sake of a size number. As Victoriaearle mentions, many readers simply jump to the section(s) they are interested in, so imo, length is noting critical and is only something head strong editors like us argue about. Having said that, I have no qualms about reducing wordy and any hagiographic prose, and will of course go along with any clear consensus over any given matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My stick and my tin pot are mine, and yours are yours, “landlord”. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your dictates when they are wrong, which in this case they are—apparently, I am not alone in this. A quick survey of the article’s archives definitively reveal your proprietary, covetous response to any attempt at making this article more encyclopedic as it should be. All that aside, Merry Christmas, pal. I won't deny your hard work and dedication to your personal cause, albeit misguided. Hoppyh (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responding to any specific FA or article matter. The stick has been dropped, but I hope we can end this FA review on a better note, a commitment to cooperation. Both Gwillhickers and Hopphy have done excellent work on the article. George Washington should be the primary focus. This FA review has helped immensely. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Okay, enough guys, let's call a halt to the friendly banter as well as the nom itself. Looking forward, please get this to PR after any rework, so we can have a shot at gaining consensus on length, sourcing and so on before the next FAC nomination. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 11 December 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/George_Washington/archive4&oldid=873242068"