Talk:Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777)/GA1

GA Review
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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Narrowly covers the broad issues b (focused): Remains focused on topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: