The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that part of the reason Arthur Dobbs, colonial governor of North Carolina, ordered the construction of Fort Dobbs in 1755 was to protect 200,000 acres of land he owned?
Current status: Featured article
Daily page views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
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?
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)[reply]
Placing the article on hold. —Ed!(talk) 13:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good grief
It seems incredible to me that a featured article in an international encyclopaedia about a place can manage to completely ignore stating the country involved. There is a mention that Fort Dobbs is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places in the infobox and on a template at the bottom of the page, but nowhere in the main body of the text is the US mentioned. This is an endemic problem with Wikipedia - American authors view the US as the default and rarely bother to state the country or nationality when the topic is American. The US is not the default option. It is not and should not be, and I find it incredible that a featured article is yet again following this US-centric attitude in its editing. 'Of course it's in the US, you all should know that' seems to be the attitude. 86.133.208.39 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO (speaking as someone who doesn't live in America), most English speaking people of reasonable education would recognise North Carolina as being one of the United States, though perhaps changing the opening sentence to read "...US Province of South Carolina..." might be better. An
I agree with Optimist; if every single wikilink in the opening paragraph states that those locations (Province of North Carolina, Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin, Statesville, Iredell County) are in the United States -- which they do -- adding that information here is redundant. Caernarfon Castle doesn't mention anywhere in the article that it's located in the United Kingdom -- just Wales. The same is true of Windsor Castle, mentioning that it's in an "English County of...", but again, nothing about the UK. I think it would be redundant and overkill to add location information. There are plenty of Americans, with some education or not, who don't know Wales is in the United Kingdom. Cdtew (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's entirely bullshit that none of these articles indicate the places described are on the planet Earth! Why does Earth have to be the default assumption? It's either extreme chauvinism, or perhaps merely someone who requires something to bitch about incessantly.
As a non-US reader, I think additional locational info is unnecessary. If a reader was confused, there's no shortage of clickable links, lat and longs etc. on the page. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fort Dobbs (North Carolina). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
