Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:40, 2 June 2009.

Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

 * Nominator(s):  Magic ♪piano 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the third article I've submitted having to do with Fort Ticonderoga. Hopefully, the FA reviewers will smile on this one as well. This action is noteworthy mainly because this year is the 250th anniversary of the event (as it also is of a somewhat more famous battle in the French and Indian War).

The article has passed a GA review, as well as a fairly straightforward MILHIST A-Class review; I've worked since then primarily to tighten the writing. Thank you for taking the time to review.  Magic ♪piano 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I've made some minor changes to the article in addition to these comments below. If there's any problems, don't hesitate to let me know.
 * Comment No problem, it's not my article.
 * This might sound silly, but can you use the term "Frenchmen" to define French-Canadians ... or do you not make that distinction that far back?
 * Comment The regular military and the provincial militia in New France were distinct (as they were in the British colonies). On the other hand, I can probably remove that whole distinction in the background paragraph, as it's hardly vital. Done
 * The lede mentions "improvements to the area" after the fort's fall, but I don't see any mention of these later in the article. Could you please explain them?
 * Comment Aftermath, second paragraph (roads, construction of Crown Point).
 * In the Background section, do you think "broken" is jargon, or should it be clear through inference?
 * Comment I'll change it to "defeated". Done
 * I'm a little confused by the starting positions for the 1759 campaign. Fort Ticonderoga is in the United States today, yet it was built by the French in French-controlled territory?
 * Comment I will clarify this.  That was the frontier between New York and New France at the time. Done
 * Going "north, down Lake Champlain" seems a little awkward; most people (or at least me) don't think of north as down, even though I can grasp what you're saying.
 * Comment I need to communicate that going north is indeed going "down" the lake (i.e. towards its exit), precisely because people don't usually think of "north" as "down". Changed "down" to "on".
 * I know you probably don't want to repeat what's written in the Fort Ticonderoga article, but it might be worth pushing the line about why the French built the forts up toward the top of the article and expound a bit on the geography -- why the British had to advance up this route.
 * Comment I'll add some more strategic background. Done, I think.
 * When you say "from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire and Massachusetts", this might not be clear to a non-American audience; what colonies this includes isn't obvious.
 * Going back to the fourth comment, it's not clear where you're talking about when you mention "frontier forts".
 * Comment Would something like "western frontier forts" be an improvement? (I could also import this map if that would help.)
 * It just goes back to the question about where the border was between British and French claims ... I know the frontier moved gradually westward, but I just don't know where it was at this time. Judging from the map, it appears that it was near the Ohio River. Is that correct? JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the map (it's more useful than the Ti detail map anyway); I trust the language I've added clarifies the territorial situation at the time.
 * You've got wikilinks for the British regiments; should the French "La Reine and Berry" regiments get links at least to their namesakes?
 * Comment I don't believe they have pages. The best list currently in WP appears to be here, and even the French pages on those regiments are stubby.
 * The Commemorations section is a bit barren ... could you add a bit about what's planned? Were there any celebrations for other anniversaries -- 200th, 150th, etc.?
 * Comment Good question. I know the fort was opened to the public in 1909, but the inaugural events marked Champlain's "discovery".  I'll have to see if anything obvious turns up for 1959.  (The Battle of Carillon is much more likely to have been marked by major events.)
 * The only indications of commemoration in 1959 I've been able to turn up are from news accounts of events celebrating Champlain. (I'd like to extend to section once there are news accounts of this year's events.)


 * It's a good article, and I won't mind supporting it for FA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments.  Magic ♪piano 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some updates  Magic ♪piano 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. All my questions have been answered, and the article is clear, concise, and doesn't skip any relevant portion of the subject that I can detect. It's a good article, and I wish the editors luck on the next articles in what I assume is an eventual featured topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - File:French and Indian War map.png - The template is not good. We need to know which edition of the Harper's Encyclopedia this image comes from (there are three) and we need to know which volume (there are ten). It would, of course, also be nice to have an author. Did you check the encyclopedia itself? Finally, note that the current license is incorrect. It cannot be 100 years plus the life of the author, since the author is not listed. We either need to find the name of the author and list his/her death date or change the license to PD-1923. Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourced The image page identifies it as coming from the 1905 edition. I've added a link to the page with the image in Google Books.  The license comes from Harper's Encyclopedia of US History.  Magic ♪piano 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed the image information from the Google Books scan (note that this image is from Volume 3, published in 1906). Also, note that since we don't know who the artist is, we cannot use the license that accompanies the template since it claims 100 years plus the life of the author. We have to use the PD-1923 license, which means that the work is in the public domain because it was published before 1923 in the US. I have now added that to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Conditional support This article appears to be comprehensive to me - it covers all major aspects of the "battle" - and is well-written. I just have a couple of questions below.
 * Carillon, located near the southern end of Lake Champlain, occupied a place that was strategic in importance before white men arrived in North America - Could we be more specific about which white men these are? :)
 * to lead an army into Canada by going north on Lake Champlain - "along Lake Champlain" or "across Lake Champlain"?

Once the image issue is resolved, I will support. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify these. (I assume you'd rather have it say something like "Europeans" than "white men"?)  Magic ♪piano 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know specifically which Europeans? More specificity is better - French? Spanish? British, etc. Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust my last edit is specific enough? (I've also changed "going north on" to "sailing north on"; I don't like "along" because it could imply "beside", and I don't like "across" because the lake's geography implies to me a crossing of the short dimension.)  Magic ♪piano 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Query Is there a reason why these really old sources are being cited (especially with respect to factual items such as statistics/dates)? Seems like a safer route would be to verify these statements against more modern sources. Budding Journalist 01:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the force numbers in this, especially those of the militias, were maddeningly difficult to track down. Part of this is due to the relative unimportance of this event in 1759, as it was overshadowed by the Quebec action, but also most modern treatments of the war just don't seem to give things like the militia numbers (note that I've been unable to locate actual numbers for the militia contributions of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or Rhode Island).  The infobox numbers are all sourced to fairly recent works.
 * I also have a slight bias toward placing citations in Internet-readable sources, especially if something is relatively uncontroversial.  Magic ♪piano 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support and query I can't see any major issues, but I don't like the forced image size for File:Ticonderoga attack plan2.jpg. This overrides user preferences, and the whole point of thumbnails is that you can click on them for tthe full-size image. jimfbleak (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually motivated to improve this article (which was fairly stubby) in part by Durova's work on that map (which is a Featured Picture). In my opinion it is only usable if displayed somewhat larger.  With the larger size at least some detail is more visible.  This is just my opinion, of course;  if consensus otherwise seems to prefer default sizing, I'm OK with that. (Thanks for your support!)  Magic ♪piano 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.