Talk:George Washington's political evolution

Scope and main sources

This article focuses very specifically on Washington's political evolution, from a young Virginian burning with ambition for wealth and recognition to president and father of his country. Although his two terms as president are obviously rich in content, coverage of that period of his career in this article is light. My reasoning is that by this stage, Washington had completed his political evolution, and a detailed narrative of that phase of Washington's career adds nothing to new to the story. Similarly, as a sub-article, it touches only on those aspects of Washington's life that have a direct bearing on his political evolution; significant detail, for example his actions during the Revolutionary War, is left to the main article and other, more relevant sub-articles. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have based the initial incarnation of this article on three main sources. As a relatively recent, Pulitzer prize-winning biography, Ron Chernow's Washington: A Life seems to be one of the best general biographical sources. I have the E-Book edition, so the page numbering used in this article's references will differ from the print editions. The other two sources – the 1988 edition of Paul K. Longmore's The Invention of George Washington] and the 2009 edition of John E. Ferling's The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon – focus specifically on the political aspects of Washington's career, the prime focus of this article and my basis for determining its notability. All three are solidly reliable sources, the last two with strong academic credentials specifically in the field of history. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

I have tried throughout to use American English, but this is not native to me and I may have inadvertently perpetrated some British English errors. This has in the past caused great indignation, and if I have done so here I can only apologise(!) and promise not to revert any corrections. However, in all quotes I have retained the original spelling, capitalisation and punctuation as provided in the sources. It would appear that the English of Washington and his contemporaries had not yet evolved into its American variant, and there are, therefore, deliberate instances of, for example, "Honour" instead of "Honor". Factotem (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Factotem: This is great. But, can I suggest that you convert some of the refs (the sources used lots of times at different pages) into harvard-style citations? --DannyS712 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for helping out with the duplicate citations. I've always used the <ref>...</ref> short citation style because it is, for me, the simplest form and, per WP:CITESTYLE, is perfectly valid. I would prefer, therefore, not to change it. Factotem (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Factotem: Would you be okay if I try to change it? I've been wanted to learn how to use harvard style --DannyS712 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Per WP:CITEVAR, it's normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor and that style should be followed. Factotem (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Factotem: Okay --DannyS712 (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Washington's political evolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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

1. It is reasonably well written.Y

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

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Y

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

1. It is broad in its coverage. Y

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

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

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

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

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

1. neutral point of view policy

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

1. It is stable. Y

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

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

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

1. Overall:

   Pass: Y