# Talk:Fort Senneville

Another nice addition by the author covering all the requirements well - but again a tad pre-mature.  I may promote it myself in a few days but will hold off for now.  I changed a couple of things most notably avoiding disambiguation pages and adding some categories (all articles should be categorized to some extent).  I do have one point to make regarding the structure and context of the article.  I don't think it is quite enought to say that it was one of a series of forts built especially since there is no general article on the subject.  Consider expanding or adding at least a sentence which more generally describes the forts such as when and why built.  It doesn't have to be much but context needs to be strengthened.
It might sound trivial but in Site Today section you use the word "site" too often.  It grates my sensitive soul.
Also when you nominate an article you should put the appropriate tag in the Talk page.Peter Rehse 02:57, 16 March 2007

I have removed three out of the six incidences where "site" appears in the final section, and once out of the lead. As for context, I added that the outlying forts were 30 in all, and that Fort Senneville was one of four substantial castle-like forts in the network. I would like to have a main article for the forts in general, but I will have to write about Fort Longeueil and Fort de la Montagne first.  --Grimhelm 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Reads fine to me.  Let's see if there is any response after the DYK listing (English cannon anyone?) but in my view it is definately promotable.Peter Rehse 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent to the GA issue now but I am curious is there such a rule about English names for English articles (vis a vis the recent edit).  If this was so then consistency is another consideration since in this article we still have both including for the same name.  My feeling is that either is ok but the name should be spelled the same throughout the article.  The excellent Battle of the Plains of Abraham article uses French names.  I consider that part of their charm and prefer it.
Whatever the case - this article should be checked for consistency.Peter Rehse 10:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). However, under "Disputed issues", it mentions that there is no consensus if the English and native names are identical but for diacritics. Since Montréal is the second largest Francophone city, and we are talking about a topic related to New France, there should be no issue over using the French spelling (provided we bypass redirects).  --Grimhelm 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to know - thanks.Peter Rehse 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. I made a few minor edits, please go over them and make sure that I didn't incorrectly change something. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the assertion in the article here about the circumstances of Arnold's destruction of the fort a bit odd.  I wouldn't characterize his departure from the area as a retreat, considering the sequence of events in the Battle of the Cedars.  In any event, they would not have been retreating south, which is either across or up the river, toward their antagonists in that action.  It is possible that the source confused the action at the Cedars with the more general American retreat from Montreal in June 1776, which was also orchestrated by Arnold, and did in fact go south.
The source cited is now a dead link, and was also unreliable, since it was a Geocities address. I'm not sure how to fix this; perhaps someone with access to the Chartrand book can shed light.  Kingsford, Volume 6, page 54 claims that Arnold burned the building "on this occasion" during the Cedars negotiations, which might imply he burned it when he was prepared to leave the scene (hardly a retreat, and not south). Magic♪piano 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)