Talk:Battle of Malvern Hill

Jennison
I have removed the claim about Private Edwin Jennison being the youngest casualty of the war. My references do not mention him and the link provided to PS 110 does not claim he was the youngest. This link -- http://sciway3.net/proctor/marion/military/wbts/edwin.html -- claims that his name was actually Jemison and that he was 17. We can put something back in if we get some better references because the photo of this soldier is quite famous. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link
This link comes up as not found, although it goes to the right site:

Glendale and Malvern Hill battlefields at the Civil War Preservation Trust

The error says that the page is currently not available. I'm not sure if they moved it permanently or temporarily. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Too opinionated?
I am certainly no expert on this battle and Lee's tactics were certainly questionable. However, the battle would seem to have accomplished something since, "Despite his victory, Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan withdrew . . ."

I might not have ventured a comment, but there is also a clear misuse of the word "untenable" in the AFTERMATH section, drawing into question the professionalism of the article.

I think this needs rewritten in a form that useless less words of opinion. I found the same problem in the article that sent me here, on General Lewis Armistead, where this battle, w/o citation or evidence, is referred to as "senseless," surely a word of opinion.

129.62.200.171 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Section titles
Hey ,

I really kind of liked the structure before, with "Magruder arrives" then "D.H. Hill's charge" (perhaps a more descriptive title would be "Magruder leads assault" then "D.H. Hill's charge"?) I wanted to know your reasoning, and if you're willing to change it back? Cheers, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Magruder did far, far more than arrive. He continually sent unit after unit after unit into attack. This resulted in three distinct waves of assaults (D.H. Hill is included in the first wave as supporting Wright/Mahone, though Magruder didn't order Hill in personally). Magruder didn't deliberately choose to separate the assaults into three waves; that was just the timing of how they arrived and got themselves into position. The article as it stands doesn't really mention the second third assaults much. No Anderson, No Toombs, etc. The order of some unnits of the assaults are actually a little confusing, for a couple of reasons...&bull; Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Batteries
Where is the source for this and this? I've never seen those numbers before. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 171 guns is explicitly given on p. 308 of Burton. The 33 batteries is simple addition from pp. 307-308 (tho I may be off by one, due to not sure how to count Augustus Martin): west side of hill, 6 batteries w. 28 guns; north side, 7 batteries 31 guns; east/northeast side 10 batteries 60 guns; near Malvern house, 10 batteries 52 guns. This still leaves Burton and Sears disagreeing (by 1 battery and 6 guns) about the north side, which is the bit currently explicitly given in the article, but I have a strong feeling that Burton's numbers are pre-battle, and 1 battery was moved to the north as a reinforcement during. Finding that is on my to-do list, as are verifying the Confederate guns/batteries and all losses. I am seeing some different numbers for losses but we'll see how that adds up.&bull; Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Total Confederate forces

 * An IP editor changed the total Confederate forces in the infobox, and the new figure is arguably correct. Some sources list the actively engaged troops, which may have been around 35,000; on the other hand, other sources list the troops at hand, which was a number closer to 55,000. I'll try to read more and resolve this issue. Thanks Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Map of the night's march after Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 2018-12-23. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-12-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Battlefield preservation bad reference
In the Battlefield preservation section, it says "(More land has been acquired and preserved since then by the American Battlefield Trust as per citation 114)". Mentioning a reference number in article text is bad because addition or deletion of other references could change that number. it should be replaced by an abbreviated footnote to the same ref.--agr (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Content
There is far too much about the background to the Seven Days Battles, both in the lead-section and in the article itself. That topic has its own wiki page. I suggest editing those parts down to about 10% of what is currently there. Valetude (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)