Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC status, and believe it concisely and completely covers the history of this fort. Though the subject is comparatively minor, I believe the comprehensive coverage of a minor topic can be worthy of FA status. One thing I'm concerned about, however, is archaeological information. There have been three archaeological reports (I'll refer to them as South, Israel, and Babits, after the authors), but none are available much beyond one or two local libraries and a university library (unavailable even to me, although I'm desperately trying to get ahold of at least the latest -- Babits). I'm concerned about citing to these because I would question whether they'd run afoul of WP:VERIFY. In general, though, I'd like comments about the whole article with an eye to FA criteria.

Update: I have the 220 page Babits study, which is unpublished. There's a lot of great material in there about the archaeological work that I'd like to condense to 1-2 paras, but I'd like input about using an unpublished source that's apparently available only at the Historic Site or in the East Carolina University library.

Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • On the Babits study, it's not really a question of "Is this reliable?", it's "How do we typically use a source like this?" Other people are better at answering that than I am. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Babits study is genuinely unpublished (has never been made available to the public in any form), then it can't be used as a source on the wiki; as you say, it would fail verifiability. There's a difference, though, between a work having limited availability/only being held in a few libraries, and it being unpublished. Being made available to the public at the historic site, for example, would count as being published. The more limited the availability, the more onus I'd argue is on the editor to then provide quotations from the work or answer questions from other editors if the material was contentious or particularly unusual and attracted queries or comment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, then, if the research work is readily available from the historic site or from ECU's library, we're considering that published? I've contacted both places, and both have assured me that the research can be obtained by anyone interested, at least for temporary on-site viewing. As for quotes, I would hesitate to add that much additional content which could be summarized, and is relatively un-controversial. Do you think that's something I should do for FAC? Thanks for your comments, by the way! Cdtew (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, yes, I think that would meet with the definition used on the Verifiability pages. Someone could theoretically go and check it themselves if they wanted to (awkward though that would be if you live in the UK!). By quotes, I just meant that if on the talk pages someone for example asked "is that really what was said on pg. 5???", then if it's a rare work, the onus is more on the editor who has been to North Carolina to help them out! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thought on this is that the verifiability of the source relates to whether it is a "reliable" source. This is part of the first sentence in the verfication standards document cited above. Reliability is heavily weighted on peer reviewed or "third party" published sources. I take this to mean that the source can be read and commented on by third party reviewers. Published means it has been made available to the public in some form. With these two thoughts in mind I would agree that the use of the source does fit w/in the MOS guidelines on verifiability in that it is available to the public and could be reviewed by a third party. I echo the caution and suggest using the source to support generally accepted fact rather than relying on it for controversial items and/or straight supposition. That will help your cause at FAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Is the South source the one already cited in the article? If so, it's available online through Springer. If not, do you have bibliographic info for it and the Israel source you mention?
  • Nikki, thank you for your comments. I'm a little under the weather today, so it may take me some time (ie: a few days) to answer your questions or correct these issues. As for your first question, the South source isn't what's in the article -- it and Israel are reports done contemporaneously with the archaeological work. In the end, I decided to exclude them, mainly because their conclusions now appear to be outdated, but also because the Babits source I do cite to summarizes those studies very well, and is likely more easily available outside of Iredell County, NC.
  • On the Babits source, it's a question of terminology: WP:V defines publication not in the manner "normal" people do, but as "made available to the public in some form". Under that definition and WP:SOURCEACCESS, since it's available in a university library I'd say it qualifies as a reliable source, especially given that Babits would definitely be considered an expert in the field. [After edit conflict: basically per Hchc]
  • Thanks for the input. I'll keep it in.
  • Other sources you might consider include Hannings' Forts of the United States and Roberts' Encyclopedia of historic forts, both of which have short entries. Clarke has published a book about Arthur Dobbs that may or may not discuss the fort
  • I looked at Hannings and Roberts, and didn't see the need to include them. I recently purchased Clarke's book on Dobbs, and when it arrives I will glean what I can and use it as a source.
  • I've changed the wikilink to one for Flanking maneuver, which I think is closest to what I'm looking for, although a static fort isn't per se a maneuver.
  • Given the length of the article, lead should be a bit longer
  • Is what I have now long enough? I surely wouldn't need to exceed two or three good-sized paragraphs for this article, would I? I see its about 20k characters with spaces, so I read WP:LEADLENGTH as requiring two to three paras. I'm not great at lead-writing, so let me know what you think.
  • Don't start headings with "the"
  • Removed.
  • File:Collet_Map_excerpt_showing_Fort_Dobbs.jpg: why the doubled template?
  • Because of my lack of expertise! Removed.
  • File:Fort_Dobbs_Panorama.jpg: should use creation not upload date
  • Done.
  • Use a consistent date format
  • I think I had one in the footnotes that was "Date Month, Year". They should all now be "Month Date, Year" format.
  • Corrected. Had to figure out how to use that template, too.
  • I was missing one digit in each. Done.
  • "by 1754, six western counties—Orange, Granville, Johnston, Cumberland, Anson, and Rowan—held approximately 22,000 residents out of the colony's total population of 65,000" - give some context here. How much of the colony's territory did these counties represent?
  • Unfortunately, the source I used doesn't spell that out -- it (Lefler & Powell, 1973) was primarily concerned with showing the disparity in political representation between the eastern (established) counties and the western (new) counties. Without delving into OR, I don't know of a source (yet) that will give me this information (at least re: square mileage). I did however find this map, which gives good visual context. My questions, however, would be (a) is this too irrelevant? (after all, someone with the same question could gain context by going to articles about those counties to find out how they were formed and where their original borders were; and (b) is that file useable -- I mean, it does have a CC 2.5 license, at least as far as I understand the page's copyright notation.
  • That is a shame, but at this point I don't know a concise way to give a comparison.
  • "construction of Fort Stanwix in New York, ...constructed in" - repetitive
  • Removed redundancy.
  • "nearby Catawba raiding parties" - do you mean raiding parties from nearby Catawba encampments/settlements?
  • Your version is correct, and much clearer.
  • The " good and substantial building" quote is long enough to require blockquoting
  • Done, and the version I was using was a second-hand trasncription; I dug up the original quote, and it's longer and mentions Hugh Waddell, so I am using that (naturally) instead.
  • "North Carolina General Assembly petitioned King George II for assistance, indicating that the frontier remained in a relatively defenseless state" - not clear what you mean here. Did the assembly indicate to the king that they were defenseless, or did the fact that they petitioned indicate this to later scholars?
  • The assembly indicated to the king they were defenseless. I cleared up the wording.
  • "approximately 15 of the Middle Towns were destroyed" - out of how many total? Any estimates of Cherokee population in the area?
  • I've seen estimates of 60 towns, but I can't put my hands on the source that said that, so it's just from memory. I did add in Cherokee pop totals, and town size numbers for context.
  • "that had was rumored"?
  • Intended to be "that was rumored" - corrected.
  • "discovered in the 21st Century" - don't need caps on century
  • Removed.
  • "a 1,000 square feet (93 m2) lot" - should use adjectival form
  • I was using the convert template, and don't know how to change the form. I instead modified the sentence so that (I believe) it's more correct.
  • Thanks. Biggest lesson so far - templates have all sorts of wonderful tricks to them, I just have to take the time to read the template pages.
  • "the site was opened as a historic site" - repetitive
  • Replaced first site with land.
  • "archaeologists and historical researchers had determined the exact location of Fort Dobbs, and have located" - why the switch in tense?
  • Corrected tense to all-past.
  • "By 2006, archaeologists and historical researchers had determined the exact location of Fort Dobbs...by 1968, the site of the fort was confirmed" - seems contradictory?
  • I guess I was trying (and poss. failing) to differentiate the "site" from the "exact location" (meaning foundations and outline of the fort in the soil), becuase the former was known by 1968, whereas the latter wasn't really discovered until 2006. I'll try to figure out a different phrasing structure.
  • Don't use contractions outside of quotes
  • I found one he'd, which I removed, but I don't see any more outside of possessives?
  • FN49: page?
  • I didn't put that particular source in, and I can't seem to find it on the net. Are pages generally required for newspaper articles? If so, would it be on Highbeam? (I don't have Highbeam). Cdtew (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added this in. Page number is there now. At present it is cite number 51. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joanna! I was sick this week, but was going to get around to asking you to help with that anyways. Thanks for keeping tabs on me, and thanks for that source! Cdtew (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in locations for two that were missing; added states for Chapel Hill publishers.

Comments from H1nkles

  • I appreciate your advice already. Over the next few weeks (after the peer review period, more likely), I plan to "walk away" from this article and come back with fresh eyes. As for now, though, any advice you have is much appreciated! Cdtew (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fort was primarily built to protect the British settlers..." Remove "primarily" as a superfluous word. If it was built for any reason other than to protect British settlers then you should list it otherwise adverbs like "primarily" become unnecessary fluff that gets picked off a FAC right away. Especially when it's in the lead, which is often the first impression reviewers get of your article. "...and constructed entirely of wooden logs..." "entirely" is another of these removeable adverbs.
  • Removed both; looking for more...
  • "...implying a very small total population." The context tells us it was a small population, no need to spell it out.
  • Removed; I suppose it is self-explanatory.
  • "Within three years, most of North Carolina's population increase, driven mainly by immigration of Scots-Irish and German settlers traveling from Pennsylvania on the Great Wagon Road, was occurring in seven western counties created after 1740." Be judicious in using parenthetical references. This is frowned upon at FAC - not completely rejected but discouraged if that makes sense.
  • I'm not sure what you mean. To my mind, "parenthetical references" means a reference in parenthesis rather than as a footnote. If you mean that I'm using refs that have an author name and page number, I'm still confused. I see articles all the time on the front page that use scads of "author-year-page number" refs and easily made FAC -- see: Action of 1 January 1800, Little Moreton Hall, etc. If you mean something else, let me know.
  • I think I should amend the comment to "parenthetical remarks" as being more descriptive of what I'm trying to say. Yes parenthetical references do refer to items in parentheses, but they also refer to information in a sentence that is set off and explanatory but may not be bracketed by parentheses. Commas are the other common punctuation used for parenthetical remarks. Using parenthetical remarks isn't bad per se but should be used judiciously, in my opinion.
  • Ahhh! I see. Ok, I'll look at how I can rephrase. I think that's one of my only instances in the article.
  • All punctuation should go before citation, check throughout for consistency.
  • As of this time, all citations look correctly-placed.
  • The first sentence in the "Construction" subsection is a bit unwieldy. I would end it after "parties" with the citation. I would then start a new sentence with the quote from the letter. Check WP:QUOTE for MOS guidelines on the use of quotes and some formatting suggestions. Since it isn't a short quote you may want to format it a little differently. That's a style suggestion that is completely up to you as long as it conforms to the MOS.
  • I broke that first sentence in half, and re-tweaked how the quote sits in the para. Since it's not terribly long, i'm not in love with the idea of making another block quote, so I just tried to fit it in as un-awkwardly as possible.
  • Is there a reason the fort cost so much less than contemporary forts of its time? Anything in the research that could be added here? You make the point that it cost comparatively little to build but don't tell the reader why.
  • The fort was wood, and built somewhat quickly. I've not seen any direct comparison between the forts I listed and Fort Dobbs, but if I had to hazard a guess it's because Fort Stanwix is larger and built in a more modern Vauban style; Fort Prince George, on the other hand, was smaller, so I have no idea why it cost more, and haven't seen an explanation. This is all OR, and I would prefer not to put anything in unless I had a source; while it'd be great to have further comparison, I think the cost alone tells the story that needs to be told -- this fort was cheap (implying temporary, and implying the poor finances of North Carolina at the time).
  • You link "militia" in the second paragraph of the Construction sub-section though it is mentioned in the first paragraph and not linked. Make sure the first instance of a term is linked per WP:LINK. Then subsequent references to that term do not need to be linked. Check throughout the article.
  • Moved that link to para 1 of the Background, although I could move it to the lead...
  • The subject matter of the second paragraph in this sub-section is too variant. The start of the paragraph discusses who had a role in designing and building the fort. Then it strays into further reasons for the fort's construction (the subject of paragraph 1), then wraps up with a fact about it being the only military building between SC and VA. This needs to be addressed. Keep the subject matter of each paragraph discreet. I'd question the premise for including the fact about the congregation house at all. By simply stating that a settlement was growing in that area you make the point that needs to be made. File that under my opinion though.
  • I broke up that second para, and moved the information relevant to "reasons" to above the construction portion.
  • I think the long quote in the "Descriptions and shortcomings" sub-section needs quoatation marks but I could be wrong. Check WP:QUOTE on that.
  • MOS:QUOTEMARKS says use either quotation marks or block quotes. Since it is now a block quote, I'll omit the quotation marks.
  • The name of the sub-section is plural "Descriptions and shortcomings" but I see only one description. I also don't see specific shortcomings, which I would expect from the title. Perhaps you want to rethink the name of the title or see if the fort had any defined shortcomings.
  • I see what you mean. I changed the title to "Description and effectiveness", because that's what that section is really talking about.
  • I see at least two different links for Pennsylvania, select one and then remove the other.
  • Done
  • "The fort was primarily used as a base of operations for Waddell's company...."
  • Removed. I guess I love words of ordination too much.
  • The chronology in the first paragraph of the Early Uses section is a little weird. You start with its use at its inception then cover its role during the French and Indian war when Waddell was in PA, then double back to its use before the war (at least I think it's before the war since Waddell is back in the fort). It's a bit confusing and probably needs to be tiddied up.
  • Re-arranged to clear up the timeline. Waddell's absence was approx 1758-1759, so I think the article conveys that well enough now.
  • "In addition to warning nearby natives against attacking settlers in the Carolinas, Dobbs also instructed Waddell to attempt to keep peace with the Catawba, going so far as to instruct Waddell to turn over a settler who had killed a Catawba hunter in order to placate the hunter's tribesman, 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." This paragraph is one long sentence. I think it should be broken up.
  • Done. Broken into 2 sentences.
  • I'm not sure I understand the point of the paragraph on the aborted construction of a second fort. What does that have to do with this fort other than that Dobbs was a part of that construction? Unless you have a good reason to keep it in this is probably information that can be cut. More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it should be kept in because it shows a (relatively) comprehensive (though aborted) plan to fortify other areas of the frontier. What I want the reader to get, though, is that this plan was disrupted by poor relations with the natives, and thus left the frontier in its relatively defenseless state, with Fort Dobbs as its only protection. I think this comes through the article, and would prefer to keep this paragraph in.
  • I'm a little confused by some facts in the "Decline and fall" sub-section. You say that the Anglo-Cherokee War was fought at the same time as the French and Indian war and that the fort was used as a garrison to repel Cherokee raids in 1758, yet in the previous sub-section you say that the fort housed only two soldiers from the inception of the French and Indian war through 1759. These facts seem incongruent. Am I missing something obvious here?
  • The French and Indian War was 1754-1763 (although fighting ended for the most part by 1761); the Anglo-Cherokee War was 1758(-ish)-1761, meaning that between 1756 and 1758, North Carolina contributed soldiers to the conflict in Pennsylvania, but thereafter wasn't required to contribute as much. I'll clarify the dates in the article.
  • "...albeit against the opposition of several pro-British Cherokee leaders." This is implied from the context and can be removed.
  • Since the article doesn't go into a disquisition of Cherokee politics, I'd like to leave something in that clues the reader into the fact that there were Pro-French as well as Pro-British Cherokee leaders. I've modified it slightly.
  • Overall I'd challenge the need for the extended description of the causes of the Anglo-Cherokee war. I'm not sure what it does to advance the narrative on the history of the fort and consequently I suggest you think about removing or significantly reducing it.
  • Again, I compare this to articles like Action of 1 January 1800 and 1740 Batavia massacre, which gave either more or less detail than I did. I think the detail I've included is beneficial for the article, in part because Fort Dobbs -- as a physical symbol of encroachment on Cherokee hunting grounds and the expansion of the frontier -- was part of the cause of the war. Additionally, I think the reader needs the context to know that this was supposedly a quiet theater of the F&I war after 1758, but this Cherokee "rebellion", as it was known, kindled a fire in what had otherwise been a sleepy backwater. I disagree with taking the extended description out, and I think it balances what needs to be said without going too far.
  • Scalps is another misplaced link that needs to be linked earlier in the article.
  • Moved!
  • "...small Cherokee bands attacked homesteads and small communities...." Small - small, consider changing or removing one of the duplicative words.
  • removed second instance and replaced with "communities on the frontier", implying small size
  • "In raids on April 25 and 26, 1759, several parties of Cherokee led by Moytoy of Citico struck at settlements on the Yadkin and Catawba Rivers against the wishes of Cherokee leaders such as Attakullakulla, killing around 19 men, women and children, and taking more than 10 scalps from those killed, including eight scalps from settlers living on Fourth Creek." This is a very specific sentence that ought to be referenced directly after the sentence.
  • Cited, and changed that paragraph structure.
  • Fort Prince George is linked twice, once is enough.
  • Removed.
  • The writing in the Site preservation and archeology and Historic site section is pretty good.
  • Thanks! I added some since your comment, but preserved what I had.
  • I'm not sure about the formatting of the pictures in the Historic site section. I'd check the MOS specifically WP:LAYOUT, WP:ACCESS and WP:IMAGE.
  • I looked at layout, and it seemed to indicate as long as it wasn't disruptive on mobile devices or smaller screens, then it would be OK. I've looked at this on my iPad and iPhone, and don't think its disruptive. If anyone had thoughts about how I could format it better, I'm all ears!
  • The key with references is that the format needs to be consistent. Make sure everything is exactly the same.
  • I think everything should be uniform now.
  • Overall you have a good article, it's not too long, which will serve you well at FAC. You need to tighten up the writing and look critically at a couple of sections that may stray off topic a little. Make sure the subject of each paragraph is discreet and that you're sourcing the information correctly. Finally make sure you adhere religiously to the MOS. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a couple of areas where I felt the information was tangental to the subject matter and could be removed. You disagreed, which of course is your prerogative. What follows are my opinions of what FAC reviewers are looking for based on my experiences. In my opinion FAC reviewers are looking for adherence to the subject at hand and brevity. This is why I looked critically at information that appeared to be obvious from the context and also at information that appeared to be tangentally connected to the subject matter. The reviewers probably don't care about the subject of the article nearly as much as you do and so will be merciless in cutting out what they feel does not add to the article. If you can make a cogent case, should the issue come up, then you're fine. After being beat around the ears enough I've resigned myself to cutting and burning through articles to make sure they're lean and mean when they get to FAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand completely. I appreciate your suggestions, and I think (I fear?) that they may turn out to be true. Part of the reason I want more background in the article is because of the terrible state of the Anglo-Cherokee War article itself. I think I'll take your suggestion and use it thusly: I'll come up with a good, concise defense in case that question is raised, and if that doesn't satisfy the reviewers, I will have a pre-determined portion that I will cut out quickly. This all presumes, of course, that I'd have the opportunity to cut and edit during FAC. Thanks again for your time! Cdtew (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Thanks again, Dank, for taking another look at my prose. Continued appreciation flows from me in your general direction.
Happy to help, Clark. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fort_Dobbs_(North_Carolina)/archive1&oldid=532766267"