Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [1].

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

[edit]

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it concisely and completely covers a frontier fort that was involved in a critically under-recognized period of conflict, and because I have put this article through multiple ringers including WP:MILHIST A-Class Review, GAN, a lengthy Peer Review, and I believe this article is in peak condition. This is my first nomination, and the first article I've started that's gotten this far, so I look forward to the experience. Cdtew (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've reviewed this for A-class and Peer Review. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images (but not spotchecks) were mostly covered at the recent peer review, but a few more:

  • Done. I checked the rest and made sure they were right. Cdtew (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: Based on your comments in the peer review, I tracked down and purchased a copy of the Arthur Dobbs biography by Desmond Clarke; funnily enough, it mentioned the fort in passing, mentioned the conflict slightly more, but was mostly focused on Dobbs' personal financial interests and his wrangling with the Provincial Assembly. I will be using it, but only to add a nice footnote about Dobbs' land near Fort Dobbs. Cdtew (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one last thing, since you did an image check. I've finally figured out how to extract an image of Hugh Waddell from an online book. The image is uncredited, but it appears as a print in a book published in 1885/1890. Does this pass muster for purposes of FAC image checking? If the PD tag I've got on the image isn't sufficient, or if the image constitutes a "substantial edit" that throws off the FAC review, I'll happily remove it. I've been trying to source it for weeks now, and had forgotten somehow that it was in the Waddell book. Cdtew (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article at Good Article Nominations and a substantial number of comments were addressed. Following this, I suggested to the nominator that he expand the archaeology-related coverage of the article. Looking again, this has been satisfactorily done, and I believe it now has the comprehensiveness necessary for FA. Good work. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  1. This sentence in the lead makes sense when viewed with Wikilinks, but look at the problem when the links are left out (as they are on some mirrors):
    • Used as a provincial fort during and after the French and Indian and Anglo-Cherokee Wars,
      How does the reader know how many wars are there ? Without links, it looks like either three wars, or one war with a weird name.
  2. Please try to vary the prose, sample ... built ... built
    Fort Dobbs was built to protect the British settlers of the western portion of what was then Rowan County. Built as a blockhouse ...
  3. Unclear why the switch here ...
    • The fort's name honored Arthur Dobbs, the colonial Governor of North Carolina from 1754 to 1765, who authorized its construction, and played a role in designing the fort.
      Design is before construction, so why not who had a role in the fort's design and authorized its construction ... same tense.
    • And then the very next sentence again used "its construction" ... please try to vary prose.
  4. Don't understand why these two sentences are connected at all, much less with "although" ?
    • the fort housed a variable number of militia soldiers, although many soldiers based at Fort Dobbs were sent to fight in Pennsylvania and the Ohio River Valley during the French and Indian War.
  5. Scanning further into the article to see if there are similar issues:
    • The attack on Fort Dobbs and settlements in the North Carolina Piedmont led the government of North Carolina to join South Carolina and Virginia in their attacks on the Cherokee in their own settlements in North and South Carolina, known as the "Middle" and "Lower Towns". Initially, however, Governor Dobbs notified Governor Lyttelton of South ...
      Repetitive ... attack on ... attacks on ... Also, see here and here for discussions of the overuse of however; please review throughout.

I am not opposing (yet) because the article isn't in bad shape, but I would suggest additional prose checking and tightening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, I'll have a look later tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking he time to look this over. I will go through the wording a little later (probably simultaneously with Dank) to see if I can make it sound more varied. I sincerely appreciate your comments, and look forward to your responses once the article has been revised accordingly. I've moved my responses to your points below:
1. The more I think about this, the more I think it should just be the French and Indian War, since that encompasses the Anglo-Cherokee war as well. I have made that adjustment.
3. I don't necessarily disagre, but as far as government is concerned, authorization for construction (and in this context it mainly means appropritaing funds) comes initially before the design of a structure. I'd be open or changing the order, though, if it just flows better.'
4. I agree, this sounds strange when I read it now. I'll change. Cdtew (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I only see one use of "however", and I believe that it's the correct usage, since it isn't conjoining two complete thoughts, merely attempting to distinguish the thought that follows it from the prior sentence. I am, however (ha!), replacing it with "though", which is less clunky. Cdtew (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit by SandyGeorgia:
Now we have this:

Delegate comments -- A belated welcome to FAC on behalf of the delegates, Cdtew... I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is standard procedure for new nominators (and is generally expected every so often for old FAC hands as well). If one of the reviewers above would like to take care of that, well and good, otherwise I'll scout around for someone to action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been posted at MilHist for a day or so, and I just posted it at WikiProject:NC; no responses yet. Cdtew (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response, it seems. If it makes the spot check simpler, I have copies of pretty much all of the items in the bibliography (aside from some that I used the online version of only). If anyone needs scans, I'd be happy to send them. Cdtew (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 7 sources:

  • "generally accepted by the academic community" - not sure this can be argued based only on the source given, though I don't doubt it to be true
  • "constructed from parts of local, 19th-century log structures" - not in cited source
  • "At the commencement of the French and Indian War, settlers in the nearby Fourth Creek Congregation settlement took refuge within the fort's walls" - the only thing about this in the cited source is "At times colonists stayed close to the fort's walls for protection". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue 1: Changed to reflect source That is a remnant of my original writing, so I've corrected it to conform more with the source. Regardless of academic acceptance (and admittedly, it hasn't seen any real academic comment as the Babits proposal was prepared privately for the Friends organization), the only two entities whose approval matters are the Friends (who are funding the project), and the State (whose historical site it is). As of now, both are all-in on reconstruction based on Babits.
  • Issue 2: Done That was a forgotten cite to a different part of the website. It's not an independent source, but its not really controversial information; I believe I've seen this mentioned in one of my book sources, and if I find it (and if you think it'd be better) I'll replace it when I'm able with a third-party source. I imagine the third party source, however, will base its info on the state or the non-profit saying that's what it is, though.
  • Issue 3: Done I've conformed my wording more closely to the fort. A later source I quote (Lofaro) does say that Daniel Boone's extended family found protection "in" the fort, but I checked back and it doesn't clarify or expand on that beyond a mention. Thanks for the s/c! Let me know if anything else pops up - I've been working on this for so continuously that these just got lost in the mix, or I never went back and clarified. Cdtew (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about #2, it's not a concern to have a non-independent source for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fort_Dobbs_(North_Carolina)/archive1&oldid=1138460995"