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.

---

Previous nomination

Fixed many of the issues in the previous nomination, and I'll try to fix more that come up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• The text still needs a copyedit.
• The battle needs placing into context: there is none.
• The questions raised about the reliability of the web sources have not been addressed. Repeated here from previous nomination:

• "Battle Summary: Appomattox Station". Heritage Preservation Services. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.

• Williams, Joe (December 22, 2004). "The Final Battles at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, Virginia". National Preservation Society. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

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

• Howe, Lanny. "Battle Surrender at Appomattox Station". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

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

• "Battle of Appomattox". Civil War Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

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, Patrick. "The Battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

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

• Swain, Craig. "Battle of Appomattox Station Marker". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

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

• "Battle Of Appomattox "Surrounded" April 8–9, 1865". Bluegrass. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

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

• The published sources are not particularly current. With the mass of published scholarship, is there nothing more recent?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Needs a Level-4 copyedit (contact Logistics Dept., you should be able to get help there). At that point, it should be fine (I would, however, consider increasing the citation density of the whole article, just as an afterthought). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral the concerns raised about the material used for referencing concern me, I would like to know if you can find anything more recent before I decided one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.