Talk:Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777) is part of the Saratoga campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 29, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 22, 2009	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
March 6, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 6, 2010, July 6, 2015, and July 6, 2024.
Current status: Good article

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution A‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

A

This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

?

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

This was not a battle

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Strength of St. Clair

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)[reply]

GA Review

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. So you want to use British spelling. I will change any exceptions I spot. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: