Talk:Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is very interesting and well written. I made some changes, which you are free to reverse, to clarify the wording, hopefully. My main question is the issue of British versus American spelling/dates. I notice that the dates are British format, but some of the spelling is American: e.g. defenses, instead of the British defences. This usage needs to be consistent throughout the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was apparently started by someone using British-style dates, so I decided to exercise some balance and continued the practise. I think I took care of the obvious differences between the two styles... Magic♪piano 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. So you want to use British spelling. I will change any exceptions I spot. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Vividly written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Narrowly covers the broad issues b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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: