Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it contains all relevant information concerning the subject without going into unnecessary detail, and because it highlights a critically under-recognized conflict (being the Anglo-Cherokee War). This article, in its completeness, provides a snapshot of that conflict, and links a reader to practically every other Wikipedia page concerning the war. Lastly, I have all of the pictures relevant to the subject that are worth having. I believe this meets the criteria, but I'm new to this, and welcome any suggestions/criticisms. Cdtew (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • File:Fort Dobbs Scale Model.jpg: This doesn't give a location, but I'm assuming it's in the US. If so, you may find that the underlying art work is copyright. It depends on when it was made, but I think that the US doesn't have "freedom of panorama".
    • I've removed the photo, but am in the process of trying to clarify copyright with the original creator of the scale model. In the meantime, I'd like to try and get A-Class without that photo.
  • File:ArthurDobbs.jpg: some of the file information could probably be fleshed out.
    • I take it you mean by listing the artist, date of completion, etc? I did alter the PD tag, which was incomplete for US.
  • "a British Provincial Fort" - is the capitalisation correct here?
    • Corrected to a British provincial fort.
  • "gave permission to the settlers in Rowan County " - I wouldn't suggest that you play out the whole of the colonisation of North America in this article (!), but the article as written assumes that the reader knows who these are, when they arrived, the issues involved in the use of North American land etc.. As a result, it feels a little one-sided (the Native Americans raid settlers, for no apparent reason, the settlers are "subjected to attacks" etc.)
    • This one needs some more thought. I don't believe the violence was really very even on both sides (ie: I think the natives, who had justification for their anger, committed more violent acts in this specific time period), but after the Cherokee opened their full assault on the English, the violence was distributed fairly evenly. I guess I can source and discuss why the Cherokee were upset about English settlers invading their prime hunting territory, and about the English not keeping promises during the F&I War. See what I've done now. Cdtew (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a sum of ₤10,000" - worth considering how you communicate to a modern audience if this was a large sum of money at the time or not (e.g. an equivalent figure, a comparison statement, etc.)
    • Using this site ([1]), I can determine that 10,000.00 = 1,490,000.00 in 2005 currency, which I can then convert to $2,403,966.00 -- I will cite the underlying work, and give a citeweb template including the link to that handy chart. What are your thoughts on that method?
  • " a company of provincial rangers" - what's a provincial ranger?
    • This should be changed anyways, as truth be told the soldiers were basic militia who functioned sometimes as rangers, and other times as garrison troops. I changed it to just "militia". The only reference to them as "rangers" comes from the Governor of Virginia at the time, who didn't have direct contact with the unit.
  • "560-acre tract" - this and other distances/sizes need alternative figures (try the convert template, which will do this for you).
    • Done for all listings of acreages
  • "The new settlements required somewhat regular protection, as the settlers in the area attributed many crimes and forms of harassment to nearby Catawba raiding parties." - "somewhat" seemed awkward.
    • Eliminated as unnecessary.
  • "and killing around 19 white men, women and children. " - unclear if this means that they also killed non-white people as well, or if there was something particularly important about their racial origins? Also, does this include the 18 scalps taken in the previous bit?
    • Nothing important about race -- no mention in the record of non-whites being killed, so this is probably my archaic usage. I eliminated the race descriptor, and clarified the fact that that does include the 18 scalps.
  • "Violence between the Cherokee and British settlers continued with little abatement." - "between" would imply that violence went the other way as well, although its not been mentioned so far.
    • Clarified this a bit. Up until this point, the British settlers were taken somewhat by surprise, especially given the conciliatory tone of the Cherokee leaders communicating with Charleston. I'll comb through the literature to see if I can find instances of retribution running the other way. Added further explanation. How about now? Cdtew (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which more than fifteen were destroyed" - MOS would have this rendered as "15 were destroyed" I think
    • Done.
  • "To date, archaeologists and historical researchers know the exact location of Fort Dobbs..." I'd advice avoiding "to date", and giving a particular date, as the wiki isn't a dated source (someone could be reading this bit of the article in 2050, or 2100!).
    • Clarified the date; ref still good to official site
  • "presented a study which claimed to present a concrete reconstruction plan for the fort" - "claimed" seemed odd; was there a problem with the plan?
    • No -- that word is unintentionally weaselly.
  • "Yearly attendance to the site runs about 27,000 people." - a word missing here I think.
    • Altered that for better flow by changing "runs" to "is".
  • Worth checking for missing spaces in some of the citations.
    • I think I found them all?
  • Some citations go surname, name; others go name surname. Either works but they should usually be consistent.
    • Done --> Name-Surname format used on all (but required tinkering with the citenews template.
  • Formatting of Further Reading is inconsistent; some give publisher, others publishers and location. Formatting isn't the same as the main citations, btw.
    • I think this is correct now...
  • "Encyclopedia of North Carolins" - spelling of Carolins? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me! Support at ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Clark, are you interested in taking this one to WP:FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank: Thanks for the help above. I was sort of considering at least getting GA status after meeting the criteria for A-class, if possible. This is my first time, so I didn't presume to think this article could ever reach FAC. If you think it has a chance, I'd be willing to do so, but I'm not sure if I'd need to do that after A-class, or simultaneously therewith. Cdtew (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC tends to be doable when the subject is narrow enough. This could probably make it at FAC with a bit more research. Since you haven't done WP:GAN yet, I'll cover the prose issues relevant to GAN, mainly WP:LEAD and WP:WORDS. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presented a study which presented a reconstruction plan for the fort. To date, this study has been generally accepted by the academic community and the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources." See WP:DATED. In some cases, we recommend "as of (year)", but I think this will be good enough here: "presented a study and a reconstruction plan that has been generally accepted ...". - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've fixed this correctly. Cdtew (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "to date" is a WP:WORDS problem ... see the WP:REALTIME section. I've fixed it, and it's a little better not to repeat "presented" and "study"; I fixed those too. Otherwise, reading quickly, I don't see any violations of WP:WORDS. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry about the sloppy rewrite. I did that at work and was distracted. Thanks for catching the repetitiveness. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize the article per WP:LEAD, maybe add just a couple of sentences (and this probably tips you over into two paragraphs for the lead), one about the fort's sole engagement, and another about the recent archeological discoveries.
  • "In 2005-2006": in general, use an en-dash for date ranges, but I wouldn't use it here. If it happened in 2005, say that. If in 2005 or 2006, but you're not sure which, use "or". If in 2005 and 2006, use "and". - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • the source makes it clear that the study was conducted 2005-2006, but the findings were presented in 2006. Changed. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. After GAN, let's talk about FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your help, and I agree wholeheartedly with your edits. Do you recommend that I get GAN, or should I just move straight to FAC? Cdtew (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main question at FAC is going to be comprehensiveness. Where have you checked for possible sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm fairly certain that I've cited every significant source from the 20th century that discusses the fort with anything more than a passing mention; as far as sources that discuss the background topics, I've cited several principle sources. I think there's only one more widely available source, which I cite over at Hugh Waddell (general) that I need to add for thoroughness. Cdtew (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I'll ask some people to come have a look while it's at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "North Carolina's State Historic Sites" by Gary L. McCullough has some bits on the early 20th century history of the site I think, that should be visible on Google Books Hchc2009 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You generally like to see a map or two to illustrate some of the events, right? - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hchc -- That's on my list of things to add; Dank -- There's not a map that demonstrates battle positions -- in fact, the people at the site don't know for certain where any of the action took place. There's an educated guess that most of it occurred near a stream about .2 miles from the fort to the south, but that's a hunch based on a cluster of military artifacts found there (all of this info is un-sourced OR, as far as I'm aware). As for a map of the area including the fort, or a map of the area, there's the Collett Map of 1770, depicting Fort Dobbs, but I'll need to figure out how to get that on here without copyvio issues. I'm certain since its a work over 100 years old, I can put it up, but I'll need to do some digging on that. Map is here. Finally, there's a map of the Fourth Creek Settlement (which was, in actuality, less of a settlement and more of a close collection of farms and homesteads. See that map here. Both may add some flavor and much-needed illustration. Cdtew (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added an excerpt of the Collet map. I believe it's PD, but the part that worries me is whether any rights lie with the library that scanned it. I used to work for UNC libraries, and I bet I know the person I could call to ask. Cdtew (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heh, when I worked for UNC libraries, I was helping with their card catalogs :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Haha, when did you work there? I worked in Wilson (Manuscripts Dept/Southern Historical Coll.) from 2003-2007. I think this falls under the PD-Art claim, because the map is a bare reproduction of the out-of-copyright original. See what I did with it on the page, and let me know your thoughts. Cdtew (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • For articles where I'm a reviewer, I cover prose issues only. Early 80s. The Southern Historical Collection is awesome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under US law, you'll be fine for the map I think. If you want something done with a modern map (this isn't the right scale, but something more like File:USA North Carolina relief location map.jpg, for example), with some of the locations plotted, or arrows, etc. and need any help, let me know; I can usually do something with a .svg file. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentSupport
    • No dab links [2] (no action required).
    • External links check out [3] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text [4] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
      • Done - added Alt's for all of them!
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images review completed above.
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [5] (no action required).
    • "in the event assurances that the settler would be brought to justice under the province's laws didn't persuade the Catawba to remain friendly with North Carolina." Contractions should be avoided per WP:CONTRACTION. Suggest: "in the event assurances that the settler would be brought to justice under the province's laws did not persuade the Catawba to remain friendly with North Carolina."
      • Done!
    • Ampersands shouldn't be used: "the focus of combat in the French & Indian War" should be "the focus of combat in the French and Indian War" instead.
      • Done!
    • "including 8 scalps from settlers living on Fourth Creek..." should be "eight" per WP:MOSNUM.
      • Done!
    • A couple of references lack isbns: Clark, Greene and Saunders. I'm assuming this is because of their age (as isbn's wouldn't have been arround at time of publishing). As such could OClCs be provided instead? These are available on www.worldcat.org. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done! Added OCLC's; Saunders and Clark are generally consolidated into one series, so OCLC provided shows the series of volumes (1-26) that make up the Colonial and State Records of NC. Thanks for your comments and assistance! Cdtew (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Fort_Dobbs_(North_Carolina)&oldid=531801464"