George Washington in the American Revolution has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Muboshgu ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
George Washington in the American Revolution has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Muboshgu ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)