Talk:Battle of Gettysburg, first day

message: There was no shoe factory or warehouse in Gettysburg. Had there been a surplus of shoes in town, I would think they would have been cleaned out by Brigadier General John Gordon's brigade when they came through Gettysburg five days earlier. Certainly Heth could have been duped by a rumor or even made the shoes an excuse for his blunder that started a full scale fight. But nonetheless the mention of this part of the battle, needs to be removed. --Asososocrates 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's why it says "ostensibly." Heth's memoirs says that was the reason, so some deference needs to be paid. There are a number of secondary sources that cite the shoes as the reason for the advance, so we can't perform our own  original research to delete the historical claims, but we can water them down, which we did. Hal Jespersen 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoes, again 

message: I'm not entirely sure why User:Hlj claimed that the soldiers being shot by a sniper at Menchey's Spring was not relevant to this article - is it the day of the shooting that is contested, or simply its importance? Bearing a monument in the park today, I would assume its notability is verifiable, so do I have the date incorrect? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  11:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The day. Sorry that my edit summary was terse. Any notability of the tiny spring monument would apply only to the Cemetery Hill#Second day article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, thanks. It was the complete lack of context about why the spring had a monument, that made me curious and want to mention it on Wiki. I'm sure a number of visitors from the fields come back confused as to what Menchey's Spring was, or why it had any notability. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menchey's Spring 

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
#It is reasonably well written:
#:Pass The article looks very good here.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable:
#:Not Yet Is there any way you could add more refs to some of the paragraphs? I understand that a lot of the information probably comes directly from the source material. However, there are a lot of long paragraphs with a single source on them; it would be best if there a reference for every statistic, name, and other detail that is not common knowledge to the average person who knows nothing about the battle. I know that this will mean that you have to add some refs that seem redundant, but it makes the article much more verifiable if multiple references are cited in each paragraph several times, corroborating the same details.
#It is broad in its coverage:
#:Question: Is there any way you could find information on any kind of "pre battle background" or "post battle effects" and make them into brief sections? The information is very broad on the battle itself, and I know that it is a sub article of the overall Battle of Gettysburg, but it should also be very clear and s person should know the background and details by looking at this article alone.
#It follows the neutral point of view policy:
#:Pass both sides are represented well.
#It is stable:
#:Pass no problems there.
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
#:Pass no problems there.
#Overall:
#:On Hold See about the above things, the article is just about good to go otherwise. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After taking another look at the article, I feel that it is now of sufficent quality to be GA. Congrats! -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: What did Lee mean with the term "practical"?
Normally when such a term is used in a command context the reciever of such an order knows what certain terms in a discret situation mean.
Lee has been an instructor at West Point and Ewell graduated also from West Point even if he had no staff training he should have been able to interpret Lee's orders by their meaning with regard of his tactical situation and Lee's condition, stated in his order that Ewell must avoid a general engagement.
In plain language Lee's order reads: Occupy that hill, but be able to disengabe with the bulk of your force, if necessary. Disengage if you are forced to fight an supirior enemy force at an unfavorable position. ( Thats common knowlege since C. I. Caesar's: Gallic War some 50 BCE)
Any Prussian officer or British officer at Ewell's rank would have understood the instruction. --109.90.98.210 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure of how to answer your question except to say that this page is for discussion of the article, not a discussion of the subject. The Gettysburg set of articles are loaded with reliable source material you could draw on to discover your answer. I encourage you to find your answer in the sources. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. You can also check the article to see how many British or Prussian officers were available at Gettysburg to help Ewell interpret the order. (West Point instruction in the 19th century was much more focused on French military practices.) By the way, the word was "practicable." Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of: "Practical" 

message: On the left flank of the XI Corps, the attack focused on Gen. Schimmelfennig's division. They were subjected to a deadly artillery crossfire from Rodes' and Early's batteries, and as they deployed they were attacked by Doles' infantry. Early's troops were able to employ a flanking attack and roll up the division from the right, and they fell back in confusion toward the town.
This depiction strikes me as a bit imprecise. Firstly, Schimmelfennig's division was the left flank of the XI Corps, so of course any attack on that corps's left flank focused on him. Secondly, Early's troops did not roll up Schimmelfennig's division from the right, but the whole XI Corps- as Pfanz puts it: "Early's division, with the help of Doles's brigade [...] had overwhelmed and smashed von Gilsa's, Ames's, and Krzyzanowski's brigades in succession." Note that Amsberg's brigade (to the left of Krzyzanowski) is not mentioned, as it in fact held its position until ordered back at around 4pm (cf Gottfried in "Brigades of Gettysburg")
I would suggest to change the text to 
The left flank of the XI Corps was held by Gen. Schimmelfennig's division. They were subjected to a deadly artillery crossfire from Rodes' and Early's batteries, and as they deployed they were attacked by Doles' infantry. Doles' and Early's troops were able to employ a flanking attack and roll up three brigade of the corps from the right, and they fell back in confusion toward the town.  
SEM (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Flank of the XI Corps