Talk:Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777)

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mattisse in topic GA Review
Good articleSiege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777) 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.
Good topic starSiege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777) is part of the Saratoga campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 22, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
March 6, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 6, 2010, July 6, 2015, and July 6, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Which St. John's does this article refer to at the end? Krupo 02:08, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

This was not a battle

edit

The name, 'the Battle of Ticonderoga' belongs to the assault on Fort Carillon, at Ticonderoga, New York, in 1758. What happened at Fort Ticonderoga in 1777 involved no actual fighting - therefore it was not a battle. To needlessly call it a 'battle' means that we are left with TWO Battles of Ticonderoga when there was really only one. Let us call what happened in 1777 the Loss of Fort Ticonderoga, the Abandonment of Fort Ticonderoga, the Withdrawal from Fort Ticonderoga or the Occupation of Fort Ticonderoga - anything but a battle. That way we avoid totally unnecessary confusion and make things clearer for everyone. Flonto 09:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No it doesn't. The Battle of Carillon refers to the assault on Fort Carillon. And this battle did involve an artillery bombardment and a British pursuit (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

Strength of St. Clair

edit

In the section titled "Winter Fortifications", it is stated that General St. Clair had 2,500 men; however, the infobox states that he had 3,500. Which is correct? Nerdygeek101 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • 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: