Talk:Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777)/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

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: