Talk:Capture of Fort Ticonderoga/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Well-written:
- the article is well-written and is free of spelling and grammatical mistakes a)
and - it complies with b) the manual of style
- the article is well-written and is free of spelling and grammatical mistakes a)
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- it provides a) in-line references in each paragraph and for major facts, using
- b) high-quality list of references and sources and free of spelling and grammatical mistakes and
- contains no original research .
- it provides a) in-line references in each paragraph
- Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the key aspects of the topic and
- doesn't go into too much detail, referencing other topics as needed
- it addresses the key aspects of the topic
- Maintains a neutral point-of-view
- Is relatively stable with only minor recent edits and has no ongoing disputes
- is well illustrated with suitable illustrations and the images are
- a) appropriately tagged with their copyright status and have
- b) suitable captions .
- a) appropriately tagged with their copyright status
Well done, and ready for GA status. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Crown Point[edit]
Back to square one? I don't see what Crown Point is doing here. Okay to have three articles - one a "campaign" linked the other two, Capture of Ticonderoga and Battle for Crown Point", or just separate them. Crown point material maybe should be merged in Crown Point article? Just jarring to see semi-connected battles merged into one article IMO. Student7 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)