Talk:George Washington in the American Revolution

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Needed?

Does this article need to exist? Surely it belongs in the main George Washington article if anywhere. 86.139.146.148 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is in the main article, in the form of a summary. This article is called a "daughter article" (see WP:SS). (If everything about George Washington were in a single article, it would be far, far too long for most readers.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is telling the truth?

This article and the Military career of George Washington article say two completely different things. This article states that "Washington's contribution to victory in the American Revolution was not that of a great battlefield tactician; in fact, he lost more battles than he won..." whereas the other article states this as a myth and proves otherwise. I'm not an expert on Washington, so... which one is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimaster97 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I know. Perhaps it is misleading to word it in terms of winning battles. Washington "lost" Bunker Hill, but the British were thereafter terrified of confronting the rebels head-on and losing too many of their own men, which were quite difficult to replace! Brooklyn was horrible but he incredibly saved the army from destruction.

Trenton was quite a coup. Yorktown was done ably enough.

I guess I agree that his tactics were probably eclipsed by Arnold and others, most likely. His brilliance lay in strategy and saving the army to fight another day, and just plain persevering. Student7 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Winter of 1779-1780

I'm having trouble finding where to insert information about the hard winter at Morristown during which the army (as usual) started to fall apart for the nth time. Doesn't fit in Revolutionary War which is so high level, you need a step ladder to read it. Nor in his "career" article, which seems a mirror image of this one. Student7 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of "lavish spending"

This is an obvious attempt at deliberate misinformation. It is widely known that the money issued by the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War became hopelessly inflated and near-worthless by the end of the conflict (giving rise to the term "not worth a Continental"), and thus the cost in Continentals of Washington's personal expenses ended up being numerically high, despite the high number not representing a particularly large expenditure. One of the citations for this claim is a dubious, quasi-history book about Washington, and the other citation actually used exactly the same book as its own source. Such a bold claim--that a widely researched historical figure, despite having great amounts of independent wealth, pulled a confidence scheme on Congress so he could spend the money on petty creature comforts like food, and that he managed to cause no controversy whatsoever in the process, and that he even managed to spend an exorbitant amount of money on food and clothing while leading an army across several hundred miles of battlefields--cannot be made without context, not to mention a very reliable source, preferably more than one, and that reliable source is not a book intended to trade controversy for money. Tantarian (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Washington in the American Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article meets GA standards in my view. I can't find any flaws.

Thank you for your review! Magic♪piano 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Washington in the American Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110223045952/http://www.thebattlefornewyork.com/home.php to http://www.thebattlefornewyork.com/home.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)