Talk:Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any idea how many men the fort could garrison? The prose does note there is space for 300 to use it defensively, but never mentions if there was any possible quartering space.
 * Ed, thank you for the comments! The evidence doesn't indicate anywhere whether or not sleeping quarters were present; It's obvious there had to be some, but other than the sources saying between two and 46 men stayed there in general, there's no indication of how they slept. At this point, given my comfort level with the sources, I'd be willing to say that it would just be speculation to add this, or that this information is buried in a manuscripts collection somewhere.


 * Also, what kind of principal structures were being built?
 * I'll add in "blockhouse and stockade", and remove "principal structures", which is unnecessarily vague.


 * "The North Carolina Legislature set aside a sum of ₤10,000 " -- just wondering, is there any kind of convert template that could translate this into modern-day currency value?
 * 'I actually considered adding a modern-day conversion in my A-class review, but I became convinced that adjusting money for inflation over 250 years isn't very accurate. Instead, I chose to compare the cost to the cost of an fort built around the same time.  In addition, I will add another fort's cost that I found just last night.  I think this gives an accurate comparison without delving into the uncertainty of currency valuation.


 * "...and who was the commander of a company of provincial militia in 1755..." -- by provincial militia, do you mean any of these groups?
 * None of those groups really apply. The best description can be found is just under Militia (United States), which I added.  Even the Seven Years' War and French and Indian War articles don't link to anything good.  Maybe a future project there...


 * The "description" section is good, but do you have any kind of diagram of the fort or at least its shape?
 * Another conundrum (I hate to feel like I'm giving you unsatisfying answers). Until the mid-2000's, there were varying depictions of the fort, but all of them differed vastly in layout and detail.  In the 2000's, the researcher mentioned (Babits) came out with a report that is now considered the "definitive" description of the fort, including layout.  This made all prior depictions, most of which are post-1923, obsolete.  Even if some of those were not copyrighted, I'd prefer not to use them without a depiction of the fort as it's now thought to appear (so as not to confuse the reader or misinform unintentionally).  As far as the way the fort is now believed to have appeared, the only depictions and layouts are done by a historic reconstruction company in the UK ~2010 (presumably under copyright), Babits ~2006-07 (presumably under copyright), and there's a scale model in the visitor's center (which I had a picture of), but it was done by an artist in Morganton, NC, and I believe it is under copyright as a sculpture under U.S. law.  In other words, no accurate (or even semi-accurate) free or fair use images survive.


 * It might be helpful to describe what has been excavated today, as the photos are good, but someone like me who has never been there just sees a hole in the ground. What is that?
 * There are two reports on the archaeology at Fort Dobbs, one from the 70's, and another from the Babits expedition. Neither of them have been obtainable by me, and what I have on this page is all I could find in the secondary sources.  On the official Fort Dobbs page, there's a description of the results (including an outline-description of how Babits thinks the fort looked) which I could add, but it doesn't add much more archaeological detail than what I have.  Your thoughts on this are appreciated.


 * Dup links tool is returning five results: Statesville, North Carolina; acre; hectare; square mile; Fort Prince George
 * I removed one of the instances of Statesville (I'd prefer to keep one link in the infobox, and one in the text, unless the MOS requires otherwise. I removed dup links to Fort Prince George as well.  As far as acre, hectare, and sqmi, those come from my use of the conversion template.  I'm not sure how to prevent the conversion template from linking multiple times.


 * No problem with dab links and external links all appear to be working.
 * Article is amply illustrated with images, there are no apparent problems with stability and neutrality.
 * Thanks again, and I look forward to your responses. Cdtew  (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Placing the article on hold. — Ed! (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts are valid, I'd agree that it wouldn't be advisable to try and construct an image speculatively. It's unfortunate that the information is so hard to get, but that's history for you. I'm satisfied with the article, especially in light of its extensive A-class review, so I'm promoting it. Well done! — Ed! (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)