Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Appomattox Station/Archive 1


 * 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.

Battle of Appomattox Station (1)
I will fix any comments that you have. Cheers, Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line §  19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Needs an extensive copyedit.  Please ask one of the other editors actively involved in civil war articles to copyedit if for you.  If you can't find anyone, please leave me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Citations need page numbers. None of them have! I'm concerned that this article has put together entirely from web sources when there are so many paper sources available for ACW. Which of the web sources are reliable sources and why? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Finished, added book sources, page numbers. -- Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a lineReview Me! 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good :) Now could you please (1) tidy up the multiply-cited stuff using "ref name = " style refs (see Footnotes for how to); (2) alphabeticise the ref list; (3)✅ cite Mr Burke Davis correctly; {4) lose the extra bracket in some cites; and (5)✅ add p. or pp as necessary to page numbers? It's not necessary to say (in English) either, that's assumed.
 * Can you also please address my reliable sources question? Thanks. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The NPS Battle summary is reliable for sure. How do you want me to alphabetize the references? Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a lineReview Me! 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Finished all except alphabetizing. Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a lineReview Me! 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Observations
 * This version is not really what I was anticipating :) There are, for example, no page numbers and it's unnecessary to completely duplicate the citations (notes) and the references. Perhaps use short forms for the cites, including page numbers where appropriate, like this:
 * ^ a b c d Swain.
 * Davis (1959), p 76.
 * Davis (1980), pp 17–23.
 * (You can also cite "Davis (1959), p 76." as "Davis (1959, 76)." if you think it's neater or clearer.)


 * Why do you say (English) after references? This is an English-language encyclopedia, you only need specify the language if it's not in English.


 * Please list the references in alphabetical order. It makes it easier for the reader to cross-reference them to the cites.


 * Turning now to the web sources (and this is something that will come under scrutiny if you take this the next step, to FAC), what makes you think these are reliable sources?


 * What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.
 * What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.


 * Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?
 * Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?


 * Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?
 * Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?


 * This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?
 * This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?


 * Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.
 * Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.


 * I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?
 * I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?


 * As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.
 * As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.


 * Broken link.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I give up. I just can't seem to source it correctly. If anyone else cand do it, please do. Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a lineReview Me! 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the broken ref, and also converted the long form cites into short form ones.
 * This review is due to be closed today but under the new rules the nominator can ask for an extension of up to three days to fix ongoing issues. Would this help? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.