Talk:Bayard's Cove Fort

Bayard's Cove Fort 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.
Review: September 9, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Fortifications / Technology / British / European / Early Modern

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can you clarify - is it cover fort or cover fort as botrh are written here 217.205.224.155 (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 04:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks -- No dab, EL or copyvio issues noted.

Prose/structure -- Minor copyedit but no concerns.

Content -- Was this actually a Device Fort? It's categorised as such, and that might well be correct if it was started in Henry's reign, but no explicit mention/ref in the text stating that.

Referencing -- Look reliable and no formatting issues noted.

Images -- Licensing looks okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot on the category - had copied it over by mistake! Thanks Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]