Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)

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.

Promoted by the_ed17 [1]

Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)[edit]

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

Like my previous ACR submission, this wasn't much of a battle, but it had some interesting political aftereffects, and Ticonderoga's reputation got a reality check. I hope you think it meets with the standards. Magic♪piano 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support. Good article. Kirk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph on background has a very long sentence (A small Continental Navy fleet...) which probably should be rewritten. Done
- The images probably should be moved slightly up so St. Clair is in the American section and Burgoyne is in the British section. Fixed - Moved the images
- The map looks funny - can we make it flow better? Fixed - I made the map smaller and tried to fit it next to the British Advance section, that was what I meant. Kirk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 'Sugar Loaf left unfortified' is actually a subheading of 'American defences'. Also, I think its a strange sounding noun phrase re: WP:LAYOUT. Perhaps 'Battlefield', with some expansion? Or simply 'Sugar Loaf'? Fixed
- This article has fewer references than Fort Ticonderoga or the Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) version, but it seems like some of them would be useful in this article, e.g. Smith 1907.
- Why is the heading is American withdrawal instead of American retreat? Later in the article you refer to the American retreat. Fixed
- I'd like to see more reliable web accessible references, if possible.

Kirk (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move images around; in my display Burgoyne and St. Clair show up in places I think are appropriate (and I'm not sure what you dislike about the map's placement).
I've renamed the Sugar Loaf section, and tried to normalize on "retreat" (except in reference to movements away from something specific).
On sources: Smith (1907) is primarily about the Invasion of Canada (1775) (400+ pages) and later proposed operations against Quebec; he spends all of four pages covering the entire Saratoga campaign. I will point out that Ketchum is probably available in just about every library within 20 miles of where I type this -- not the internet, but not that hard to get a hold of, either. (And Ketchum actually uses Nickerson as a source for some of his material.) I've yet to find a web site or PD book that would make a good source for the amount of detail present here. I'm in no way opposed to using such sources; reviews of other articles have included comments and questions on the use of old sources.
- Right, you seem to know what I'm talking about, and I understand that sometimes there just aren't any good web references for a particular subject. In my opinion, even if Smith only spends 4 pages on the Saratoga campaign it makes the article a better FA candidate if you include it. Kirk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 02:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article. Was there anyone in the battle who wasn't drunk? – Joe N 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- :) It does make one wonder, doesn't it? Magic♪piano 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is in great shape. A few copyediting comments:

The plural of court-martial is courts-martial.
I see "Canadians" in the infobox, but "Canadiens" in the text (British forces section). An oversight?
" Fort Independence (Vermont) was established on Mount Independence to the east" - Quite strange to see a disambiguation term within article text.
The St. Clair portrait could use an |upright tag, for more consistent sizing.
"A height called Sugar Loaf (now known as Mount Defiance) overlooked both Ticonderoga and Independence, and large cannon on that height would make the fort impossible to defend; a tactical problem that John Trumbull had pointed out when Gates was in command." - this is wonky use of a semicolon; an emdash would be better here.
The caption given for File:1777BurgoyneTiconderoga.jpg is just "Detail of a 1780 map showing the Ticonderoga area", yet the image page says it shows Burgoyne's troop movements during and after Ticonderoga. Suggest either expanding on this in the caption or (as that image is really difficult to decipher) perhaps replacing it with File:ChamplainValley1777.jpg.
I see both "cannon" and "cannons" used as the plural; pick one, please.
The references should be listed in alphabetical order.

Altogether well done. Maralia (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your comments, except for the map. The problem with File:ChamplainValley1777.jpg, and a notable number of other period maps that I've looked at, is that they tend to be missing one or more of the following places needed for the story:

Hubbardton and/or Castleton
Skenesboro
Fort Anne
Fort Edward

I'll spend some more time looking for better maps (I'm not overly happy with this one myself). Thanks for your comments and support. Magic♪piano 17:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cleaner copy of the same map; you should find it much more readable. Magic♪piano 18:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks good to me. -Ed!^(talk) 15:14, 20 June 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.