# Talk:Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777)

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

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)

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))

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)

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)
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.  —Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Vividly written   b (MoS): Follows MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Narrowly covers the broad issues  b (focused): Remains focused on topic 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: