Talk:Fort Andross

(Redirected from Talk:Site of Fort Andross)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by UnidentifiedX in topic GA Review
Former featured article candidateFort Andross is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleFort Andross has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2022Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 16, 2023.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Important Spelling edit

  • Although Fort Andross was named after Governor Edmund Andros, it is unclear as to why there is an extra S on the fort's name. This is not a spelling error. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Maine Street in Brunswick is spelled as Maine Street. This also is not a spelling error.

Jake-jakubowski (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Merge? edit

Wanted to start a discussion about the possibility of merging this article with the Fort Andross. The infobox that's currently in the article was taken from the Fort Andross article and much of the information is duplicated with better referencing on the Fort Andross article. Thoughts? Jake-jakubowski (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

If noone has any suggestions after two weeks, I will be bold. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Fort George (Brunswick, Maine) is now redirected to this article. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Andross/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UnidentifiedX (talk · contribs) 11:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. You can read the history log to see if I have made any improvements to the article. If there are large mistakes that require more attention, you will be notified. You can track the assessments’ progress in the following table:

Notified edit

  The nominator has been notified of the ongoing review.

Assessment edit

  1. Comprehension:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) After reading the article and making minor corrections, I am happy to pass 1a and 1b.   Pass
    (b) (MoS)   Pass
  3. Verifiability:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The article is well referenced with the exception of the lead   Pass
    (c) (original research) The article does not contain any original research   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) You can view the report here   Pass
  5. Comprehensiveness:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Happy to pass both.   Pass
    (b) (focused)   Pass
  7. Neutrality:
  8. Notes Result
    The article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Happy to pass.   Pass
  9. Stability:
  10. Notes Result
    There is no ongoing edit war or content dispute.   Pass
  11. Illustration:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass

Comments edit

Thank you for reviewing the edits I made to your article. I am happy to pass the article based on the 6 GA requirements. Thanks for your patience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnidentifiedX (talkcontribs) 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply