Wikipedia:Peer review/Presidency of George Washington/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presidency of George Washington[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to know what is needed to get this article to a featured article.

Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Here's my first batch.

  • Consider getting hold of a copy of The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government by Fergus M. Bordewich
I would consider the relevant work in that series indispensable for a presidency article. I thought the Bordewich book quite good, but you could do without it. He doesn't take as favorable a view of Adams as VP as you set forth, you might want to see what other sources think of that. Bordewich feels that Adams was inept and wound up without much influence (at least in the First Congress).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ordered the McDonald book. Arrival on Jan. 15, 2018. I'll be back then. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but real life is far too demanding. I'll get back at latest on the weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rush. You might want to ping me when you are ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least for lede purposes, I don't see much distinction between things Washington did and things Congress passed an act for, for example the Mint.
The mint at least, was in large part a result of Hamilton's urging, and I have found that most bills mentioned are similar. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereby the federal government assumed the debts of the state governments" I might pipe to Funding Act of 1790
Done. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might mention at an appropriate point that Washington, due to the poor communications of the times, would often nominate or recess-appoint someone and then wait to see if the person would accept, which they often would not.
  • The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is set by Article III of the Constitution, though I imagine the Judiciary Act of 1789 repeated it.
  • The constitution was intentionally vague on the supreme court. For all practical purposes, the Judiciary Act really did establish it. Hopefully the new version is clearer though. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intentionally separate from not beholden to any state." some problem here I imagine.
  • It might be worth mentioning that Washington stood to benefit from the setting of the capital where he did, as he had business interests in Georgetown and Alexandria (both included in the district) and Mount Vernon was just down the road.
I can't seem to find a source for this right now. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would call the "Coinage Act of 1792" the "Mint Act of 1792". It was passed as a response to one of Hamilton's reports, I imagine his third one.
  • I'm keeping it "Coinage Act of 1792", as the act also established the United States dollar as the country's standard unit of money and regulated the coinage of the United States. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hamilton called for the federally-supervised infrastructure projects," I would cut the "the".
  • French Revolutionary Wars is linked on 2nd use. Tariff of 1790 may be overlinked.
  • Under the slave acts, you might want to mention that no bar to importation of slaves could be passed due to the constitutional limitation on one earlier than 1808.
  • That seems to merit more inclusion in the mentions of Congresses dealings with slavery.Eddie891 Talk Work 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest soon. Orser67, Drdpw, Thought I'd alert y'all to the PR. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on the article. Wehwalt's suggestion sound good. In terms of getting the article to Featured Article status, it's worth thinking about what exactly these presidency articles should cover. E.g. to what extent is it about the administration as a whole vs. Washington the individual, how much context about the eight years Washington was in office should be mentioned, how deeply should the article should cover each individual issue of Washington's presidency, etc. Orser67 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My general view is that the presidency article should be for the detail that we cannot cover in the main article because we have only so much room. It's also an opportunity to talk more about what the Federal government did under that president's general supervision, but he didn't actually have much involvement. The presidency articles range in quality and format quite a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's really hard to distinguish between what Congress did by itself, and what Washington's White House was behind. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The legislation introduced a new plan for distributed seats in the House of Representatives among the various states in a way that the president deemed unconstitutional." This could be simplified to "The bill would have redistributed House seats among the states in a way that the president considered unconstitutional".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt: Finally, I can ascertain that the article is comprehensive with reason. I would only maybe consider a section on 'Historical Opinion' but for the moment will refrain.Eddie891 Talk Work 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get back to it as soon as I can. I'll get you a source from the book I mention above on Washington's business interests in the new district.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the first batch.
  • "Historian John R. Alden indicates that Washington added the words "so help me God" to the oath.[25]" I might add the words "prescribed by the Constitution" to the end of the sentence.
  • Why is the Postmaster General not in the Cabinet box?
  • Postmaster General wasn't made a part of the Cabinet until 1829. Also, I think the position of Postmaster General already existed prior to 1789, while the post office department was created in 1792 with the Postal Service Act. I could be wrong about the exact details. Orser67 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it to the cabinet section but not to the cabinet box, as it was created as a sorta executive branch department, but was not really a cabinet position.Eddie891 Talk Work 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secrataryship of the Treasury," is this your typo or Morris's? If the latter, consider a sic template.
  • In Chernow's bio of Hamilton, Morris is depicted as having spelled it right. Changed. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which established the United States Customs Service and its ports of entry" I might change "its" to "designated"
  • "When the final report of the commissioners recommended the use of the military to enforce the laws," I might say "militia" rather than "military" of which there wasn't very much.
  • " marching into the rebellious districts" I might cut this. You go into detail about this in the next paragraph.
  • "Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee," more usually Light Horse Harry, or Light-Horse Harry
  • " and turned ten chiefs over to the U.S. government as hostages until all white prisoners were returned in guarantee." not sure why the last two words are needed.
  • "He attempted to turn popular sentiment towards American involvement in the French war against Britain by creating a network of Democratic-Republican Societies in major cities.[161]" the link to D-R Societies is here, but it's not the first use.
  • "mitigating effects of the November order." maybe change first two words to "partially repealing" or some such?
  • "The embargo was later renewed for a second month, but then permitted to expire." likely "was" before permitted.
  • Personally, I feel that the two "was" would be in close proximity to each other, leading to awkward reading. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the treaty contained neither concessions on impressment nor statement of rights for American sailors, another commission was later established to settle boundary issues.[182]" I don't see how the second half of the sentence follows from the first.
  • In the discussion of Spanish-American relations, you might want to mention the Jay–Gardoqui Treaty, though it was rejected.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The treaty was negotiated in 1786. Before Washington. If you really think it merits a mention, I'll add it, but I don't.
  • Your call. But it's a contrast with Pinckney's Treaty.
  • Wehwalt I've responded to most of your comments. If I didn't say anything, I changed it. Thank you so much; I know how busy you are. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether, when referring to the Proclamation of Neutrality as the "Proclamation", you use upper or lower case. There's a lower-case Congress in that discussion too. Also a lower case "Federalist". And later, a lower case "President".
  • "and under the pseudonym "Pacificus."[167]" I might put in "in published pamphets" or however he did it.
  • "and their crews impressed.[171]" the whole crews or merely those of British birth?
  • " by passing a 30-day embargo (March 26 – April 26, 1794)" I'm being picky, but isn't this 31 days?
  • "against the overwhelming public sentiment against it." I might change the first "against" to "despite"
  • "Algerine" You later use "Algerian".
  • "and to fill the demand for the land to be developed." Maybe "and to meet citizen demands that the land be developed"
  • "The region that Spain relinquished its claim to through the treaty was organized by Congress as Mississippi Territory on April 7, 1798.[218]" Might toss a "the" before "Mississippi".
  • "the shortest to date." I might say "the shortest ever" or "still the shortest".
  • I might explain that Adams was sworn in late when the Senate reconvened.
  • "The owner of nine slaves, " he owned only 9 slaves total, or just in Philadelphia?
  • "About a week after being in Boston," maybe "arriving" rather than "being"? A week after being someplace seems a bit indefinite, if that stay is several days or longer.
  • "they arrived back at Mount Vernon." Although you mention the aides, you use "he" through much of the paragraph.
  • "with some pointed comments mixed in highlight certain points," can you avoid the 2x "point"?
  • "warning Americans to: distrust the passions of political factionalism, be wary of foreign interference in the nation's domestic affairs, and avoid an entangling foreign policy.[250]"I might lose the colon.
  • "taboo.[255] This taboo" I might choose a synonym for one or the other.
  • I do think you need some sort of evaluative section, with opinions from historians evaluating Washington's presidency.
  • That's it for now. Seems very thorough and well-done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt Thank you so much for the comments. I believe I have responded to most of your comments. I'm working on a evaluative section, and perhaps the Jay-Gardoqui treaty in the upcoming weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

I'll do my best to provide some detailed feedback. It'll take me some time given the length of this article! ceranthor 02:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor: There's no rush, but any comments you should have will be greatly appreciated. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Sorry for the delay! I'll do my best to get them posted by tomorrow. ceranthor 19:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments through domestic Affairs
  • "fragile unity holding the nation together," - something about the "together" seems redundant; possible rewording this a bit could help
  • "Washington is nonetheless considered by scholars and political historians as one of the greatest presidents in American history, usually ranking in the top three with Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[2]" - is the citation necessary here?
  • "a fatigued Washington returned to his estate, Mount Vernon." - worth clarifying where it is
  • "The American public at large, however, wanted no one but Washington to be the nation's first president" - I'd cut the "no one but"; it's pretty and all but unnecessary verbiage
  • "then the nation's capitol" - nitpick, but I don't think you have to link this whole bit. Just nation's capitol or even capitol would be fine imo
  • "viewed by Washington as incompetent, and had very little influence in the cabinet." - I'd like "held" very little influence better than "had"
  • "With their departure, Oliver Wolcott became Secretary of the Treasury, and Pickering succeeded Randolph as Secretary of State" - the use of "their departure" followed by a singular person doesn't match; needs to be tweaked
  • " Adams often ended up lamenting what he viewed as the "complete insignificance" of his situation." -citation for the quote?
  • "Due to this, he filled more vacancies on the Court than any other president in American history." - "due to this" reads a bit awkwardly
  • "The Judiciary Act also created 13 judicial districts[60] within the 11 states that had then ratified the Constitution; with Massachusetts and Virginia each being divided into two districts.[61] " - why the semicolon here rather than a comma?
  • "Perhaps the most pressing issue facing the First Congress during its inaugural session was the issue of how to raise revenue for the federal government." - this seems like the type of debatable claim that you should cite immediately
  • "over 87 percent of the federal government's revenue between 1789 and 1800 came from import duties." - more than, not over
  • "or even generally oppose Washington, who they continued to admire" - might be wrong, but shouldn't it be whom?
Probably. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references " Mcdonald 1974, p. 31" (45) and " Howarth 1999, pp. 49–50" (204) don't seem to be formatted to line up with the corresponding sources section.
Not sure who "Howarth" is Orser67 do you? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had to do some googling, but I think it's this book: To Shining Sea: A History of the United States Navy Orser67 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments tomorrow hopefully! ceranthor 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've done everything. Thank you so much. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Posting some more below. ceranthor 17:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of the article
  • "remembering the French assistance during the Revolutionary War" - something about the construction "the French assistance" seems forced to me, a simple tweak should fix it
  • "leaving over one thousand people dead." - more than, not over
  • "over 250 U.S. merchant ships had been seized and all of their crews impressed.[171] ' - same as above
  • "when a special session of the Senate would convene to give its advice and consent." - shouldn't it just be "convened" rather than "would convene"?
  • "A contentious debate ensued, during which, Washington's most vehement opponents in the House publicly called for his impeachment." - why the comma after which?
  • "Only after the U.S. achieved its independence did Barbary pirates begin capturing American ships, and demanding ransom or tribute." - no comma needed after "ships"
  • "The short and simple inauguration was viewed in a stark contrast to that of 1789, which was viewed by many as almost a monarchical coronation." - instead of repeating viewed again, maybe "perceived" would be better
  • "Washington made three major tours around the country. The first was to New England (1789), the second to Rhode Island and New York City (1790), and the third to the Southern states (1791).[233]" - might be worthwhile to rehash which of the southern states existed at this time for reader clarity
  • "with over 900 books" - same as above notes
  • """simply breathtaking" " - is the double quotation mark here intentional?
  • Why do you list ron chernow at the bottom of the last blockquote followed by a comma? You didn't do that earlier when you quoted Washington.

Otherwise, this looks to be in great shape. Let me know when you plan to take it to FAC. ceranthor 17:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got them all. Ceranthor, Wehwalt, thank you so much for the thorough Peer Reviews. If you think it is suitable, I'd like to co-nom with Orser67 and Drdpw for FA now, I guess. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably like to read through it once it's at FAC again, but I think it's ready. I'd be curious to hear what Wehwalt thinks. ceranthor 22:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the same. I think you're good to go, but I'll probably go through it again in detail once it's at FAC. I do not claim to be an expert on the early Republic, I will add.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Presidency_of_George_Washington/archive1&oldid=1090411962"