Talk:Battle of Appomattox Station

Numbers

I am confused about the number of supply trains. The summary says that the losses included 3 trains. The second paragraph says “The Union army was ordered to take control of the four supply trains”. Later, the article says “Custer's division captured a supply train” and “Custer then proceeded to burn three of the captured trains”.

So, did Custer capture all 4 trains and burn 3 or did he capture and burn 3 of the trains and let the other one escape?

GreatWhiteNortherner (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to trivialise

the imporance of the events described here but this The Battle of Appomattox Station commenced four hours[18] after it had started in the Retreat section does not quite make sense... Albatross2147 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it make better sense if it to you if changed to read:

Major combat during the Battle of Appomattox Station lasted about four hours after it began, and went on until dusk in varying intensity, although more fighting continued in the direction of Appomattox Court House for another five hours.

Will that do? Kresock (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It still seems a bit clumsy. What about giving and approx start time eg. The first actions started at around x o'clock in the afternoon and continued for about four hours until dusk..."? Albatross2147 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this article getting a GA review? I see it is listed on Wp:GAN but I don't see anything here.-Kieran4 (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Appomattox Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   photo clean up tag was an MOS issue

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There was at least one unsourced reference.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Also issues with comprehensiveness

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please see GA review for all issues.

Regarding Lead

• In your last paragraph you identify Custer's forces as the Army of the Potomac, this is an overstatement, it was a portion of the army but by no means the entire army. Consider clarifying.
• There is a clean up tag on the photo requesting more information on the author of the painting. Please take a look at this.
• You don't mention in the Lead the ultimate result of the battle, the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia. H1nkles (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

• Pretty thin, I don't see any connection between what is mentioned in the background and the events that lead to the battle in question. Please expand this section to include more information linking what is already mentioned in this section to the action at Appmoattox Station. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Prelude

• The final paragraph is an actual description of the battle, it probably better belongs in the Battle section. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Preparations for battle

• Do you know which general was ordered to set up the line south of Appomattox court house?
• Per WP:ACCESS the photo is supposed to fit within the section it is referring to. Lee's photo is too big and spills over into the section before it. Consider resizing the photo to comply with MOS.
• You mention only the Confederate preparations for battle, what about the Union side? H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Battle and Retreat

• You say perhaps 100 confederate soldiers died but before you indicate the number will never be known. Is the 100 dead conjecture? Your source (#15) does not mention any number of confederate dead. The context makes it sound like this number is a complete guess, please remove this or cite it.
• this sentence doesn't make sense, "The Battle of Appomattox Station commenced four hours[18] after it had started and lasted until dusk with varying intensity". A battle can't commence four hours after it started. Commenced and started are synonymns. Please reword. H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Aftermath

• I note a template that will need to be addressed in this section.
• It also is very sparse, did this battle have any career impact on Custer? Is there anything else that could be added here? H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Notes and References

• they look fine links check out ok.

Overall Review

• You have some issues with comprehensiveness, there's more that can be added, which I've mentioned above.
• Check the photo issues that I mentioned above w/ clean up tag and MOS compliance.
• I'll put the article on hold for a week to let you have time to consider what I've said here. Thanks for your hard work. H1nkles (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Fail

Since no work has been done in the time that the article has been on hold I am forced to fail it at this time. Please work on my suggestions and renominate. H1nkles (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Errors in the article; some changes pending further revision

I have made some changes to this article, many by way of deletion, but it is still riddled with errors, omissions and inaccuracies. There are (and were more) not just irrelevant and misleadingly phrased sentences, but plain errors in the article. For example, Custer's men did not burn the supply trains. Some of his men with railroad experience did run them up and down the tracks creating a considerable racket. The trains were not captured by overwhelming force, but simply by a company of cavalry who ordered the trainmen, unprotected by armed soldiers, to surrender even before most of Custer's men rode up. Rations shared with the Confederates after the surrender actually came in part from these trains. Sherman had nothing to do with this and the random sentence about his campaign was distinctly out of place. Walker was a brigadier general, promoted February 18, 1865 as Ezra Warner, Generals in Gray, confirms. The preparations section, obscurely written, had to do with the preparations for the battle the next day. Pictures of Grant and Lee were misleading here since they had nothing to do with this battle and their presence seemed to confuse this with Appomattox Court House the next day. Some of the actions described in the article are still inaccurate. The long excerpt from Evans, ed. (Capers) about the private who shot Lt. Col. Root seemed "undue weight" considering the topic and current length of the article. I shortened it and put the reference in a footnote. I have not made any of the needed changes in the battle description and aftermath. I made these preliminary changes and post this note simply because I was uneasy about leaving the article in its present condition any longer while I finish a complete revision. Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)