Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)

Promoted -Eurocopter (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

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

I hope y'all aren't too tired of reviewing articles related to Fort Ticonderoga. This "battle", much like the first one I ACR'd, is a small military action. I have bulked the article up with some background on General Jeffrey Amherst's 1759 campaign, material not really presented elsewhere in WP, while trying to retain focus on the actual confrontation.

This year is the 250th anniversary of the action; it might be nice to see this article and Durova's great map restoration on the main page. Magic♪piano 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - (this version)
- Disambigs and links check out.
- My first comment is that this was a GREAT read. There were little to no grammar/spelling errors that interfered with the readability of the article.
- ~~"known to the British, and posterity, as Fort Ticonderoga"~~ - I'm not a fan of this. Wouldn't "known today as Fort Ticonderoga" be better, as the fact that it was know by the Brits by the different name is explained in the last para of "Aftermath"? Fixed
- ~~Can we have OCLC's for all of your books?~~ Just type this (worldcat.org/isbn/##########) into your browser, replacing the #'s with the ISBN of the book you are looking for. Fixed
  - You can also get to the Worldcat page from Google books: find the link that says "Find this book in a library" and it takes you there. (Bonus: it always links to the correct edition, publisher, etc., that was scanned in.) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've seen works where the GB link is spectacularly wrong; I then have to do a Worldcat search to find the darn thing. Magic♪piano 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You're missing a number in Jenning's ISBN; it should be 10 or 13 digits (13 in this case, to stay consistent).~~ Fixed
- ~~Quebec 1759: the battle that won Canada~~ - should it be "the Battle that won Canada"? (battle capitalized?)
  - Fixed Interestingly, Worldcat shows it with lowercase b, but an uppercase B is clearly visible in cover images.
    - Worldcat's style seems to be capitalization only for proper nouns. I see no problem with using any of the variant forms of title case. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, apologies for forgetting to answer your question. :P I'm not tired at all of your submissions—in fact, I was happy to see another one up here! Keep 'em coming ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My comment about getting tired was more tongue-in-cheek than serious. After all, how many German submarine articles (no offense intended to Bellhalla's fine work) can you read before you need a change of pace? There will be more in this series; interested parties might want to help out (or at least comment) at Battle of Carillon (which is probably the most difficult article of this set to write, since the subject really demands a military analysis of all the things that the commanders did wrong) and Battle of Ticonderoga (1777), which is probably similar to this one in work. Magic♪piano 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it was. :-) I'm not especially interested in this stuff, but keep sending them here; they are always interesting and informative reads. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support even with the disparaging words about my choice of subjects… ;) The article is nicely written and succinct yet still covers the subject well. I saw only one problem (the retrieval date for the Fort Ticonderoga Association) but I've already fixed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Chacun à son goût ;). I'm actually amazed at the amount of published detail on things like that (which is why I think your work on it is actually somewhat interesting); I'm just not in a hurry to run out and read large amounts of it (as Ed isn't running out to read colonial war histories). Thanks for your support! Magic♪piano 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fun read and no major issues. I might suggest moving some images to the left for balance, but that's it. Will you be aiming for a Featured Topic on Fort Ticonderoga? At the rate you're going it shouldn't take too much longer, if you're taking all these A's to FA. – Joe N 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I've moved the images around a bit, and added another for good measure. These are definitely heading for a Feature Topic, assuming I can wind up Capture of Fort Ticonderoga's FAC, and deal with the thornier parts of Battle of Carillon (see my comment to Ed above). All four battles and the fort article have some element that makes the story compelling. Magic♪piano 02:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (not an objection): could we get an image for the infobox? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- once upon a time, the map was in the infobox. The problem was that it made infobox+campaignbox fairly long, especially when the article was shorter, making placement of further images awkward. I can experiment a bit more with the placement. Magic♪piano 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.