Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malkin Tower/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 GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Malkin Tower

[edit]

Malkin Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): BigDom (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of the more unusual articles to be presented here for consideration. Nobody knows what Malkin Tower looked like or precisely where it was, but its claim to fame is that it was the venue for the best-known witches' coven in English history; a meeting held there on 6 April 1612 led to the executions of seven of those attending as a result of the Lancashire witch trials. This isn't the longest candidate you'll ever see, but neither is it the shortest. We nevertheless believe this to be the most comprehensive account of Malkin Tower available anywhere. Eric Corbett 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is there any extra meaning gained by using the word "transfigure" over "transform"?
Probably not, but I don't think there's any lost either. BigDom (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere to link Lancaster Gaol to.....also Lancaster Castle....
Linked to both. Thanks for having a look through the article. BigDom (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I can't find anything else to complain about, so I guess this is a provisional support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been living in Lancaster for the last few years, so I've seen a lot about the witch-trials.

Very interesting and well written. I particularly like the way the article stays focussed on the topic, rather than discussing the trials at length. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more things jumping out at me- J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some sources use ISBN-10s, some use ISBN-13s. Consistency would be good.
    All ISBN-13 now. Eric Corbett 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Mocking Tower" isn't mentioned in the main body.
    Doesn't need to be, it's cited in the lead. Eric Corbett 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "mentions Malking Tower many times", I think Malking Tower should be italicised. You're not referring to the place Malking Tower, as you call it Malkin Tower- you're referring specifically to the words he mentions.
    I don't agree, we're not talking about the words. Eric Corbett 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, if you were talking about the tower, you'd call it Malkin Tower, as you do in the rest of the article. You're making a point about the way the author spells it; you're quoting the word as the word. I'm also pretty sure you're quoting words as words with "grimalkin" and "grey malkin". You're pointing out that the word malkin is in the words themselves, not in the things the words refer to. (See the MOS.) J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with you on the first one; if you were saying it out loud you would likely put some emphasis on Malking because it's different to the usual spelling. That MOS section is so short as to be worse than useless though, it just leaves you guessing what's meant to be italicised so I'm not sure about the grimalkin bit. BigDom (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Quadell

This is a very interesting article. The prose is very good, there are no image concerns, and the sourcing is solid. I do have concerns, some regarding the lead, others regarding completeness.

  • MOS:LEAD tells us that the lead section should summarize the article as a whole without giving any information not included in the article body. (For this reason, citations are rarely needed in the lead, since the statements can usually be sourced where they are given in the body.) This lead has some problems. The other names for Malkin Tower don't appear outside the lead, though they would be natural in the "Toponymy" section. The fact that Southerns was known as Demdike does not appear outside the lead, and neither does her relation to Device, nor the fact that the alleged coven happened on Good Friday, nor that it was claimed to be most well-known in English history, nor that 7 of the 8 accused were later executed. In my opinion, if the "Association with witches" section were expanded by about a paragraph to include more of the Pendle Witches information, this would fix most of these problems. Then the citations could be moved from the lead to the body.
    What the MoS says is that "... the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body", not that there can't be cited material in the lead not present in the body of the article, and there is no reason why citations have to be removed from the lead. And there's also nothing in the Pendle witches article that adds to our understanding of Malkin Tower; I should know, as I wrote the bloody thing. Eric Corbett 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly guidelines are different from policy, but featured articles are supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia, which will usually conform to our guidelines unless there are specific reasons not to. As to the material in Pendle witches, congratulations on writing an excellent article there. But I fully disagree with the statement that there's nothing there that adds to our understanding of Malkin Tower. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns about the article's completeness stem from the fact that the FA Pendle witches gives information about Malkin Tower that is not present in this article. That article states that in 1601, "a member of Chattox's family broke into Malkin Tower, the home of the Devices, and stole goods worth about £1, equivalent to about £100 as of 2008." It cites Swain (2002) for the statement, a source not used in Malkin Tower. Although this article does make an offhand reference in the Toponomy section to "Alizon Device's claim that the family of Anne Whittle, also known as Chattox, had broken into their fire house", it's clear that there is more information available about this break-in which would be relevant in an article about the burglery site.
    What does the break-in tell us about Malkin Tower, other than that Alizon mentioned a fire house? Eric Corbett 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It tells us of an event that happened there, and the value of what was stolen. It is one of only two incidents that occurred there that we have any information about. It's reasonable for the reader to expect information on this. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But this an article about the building. What does adding the value of goods stolen, or speculation about the perpetrators, tell us about the building? Eric Corbett 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pendle witches says, regarding the Good Friday meeting, "To feed the party, James Device stole a neighbour's sheep." This may seem trivial, but in an article that has so little information about the place, would this additional detail be useful?
    What does that tell us about Malkin Tower? Adding irrelevant material just to beef up an article doesn't seem like a good strategy to me. Eric Corbett 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really my weakest suggestion, and it isn't clearly relevant, so I'll withdraw this one. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article says Newell concluded "that Malkin Tower had been the scene of a witches' coven, and that all who attended were witches." This is a very important statement, as it is the whole reason for Malkin Tower's imporance. But the Pendle witches article gives more detail: "On 27 April 1612, an inquiry was held before Nowell and another magistrate, Nicholas Bannister, to determine the purpose of the meeting at Malkin Tower, who had attended, and what had happened there." I think this information is relevant to this article. Again, expanding the "Association with witches" section by roughly a paragraph to include relevant information from the Pendle witches articles (along with the information in the lead) will fix this.
    In article about the structure called Malkin Tower I don't think it's relevant at all. Eric Corbett 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Newell's conclusion is the entire reason the structure is important at all. This is not trivial or irrelevant. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we will have to agree to disagree. Eric Corbett 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potts' book is listed in the bibliography, linked to a scanned version online. The External links section links to a different (and in my opinion, more useful) version of the same book at Project Gutenberg. You don't need both.
    Fair point, fixed. Eric Corbett 15:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to reexamine once these issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Eric that adding more details about the witch trials is unnecessary in this article; that's what the Pendle witches article is for. What we've tried to write is an exploration of what kind of building Malkin Tower might have been, where it might have stood and how its name came about. BigDom (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only details about the witch trials that are necessary in this article are the ones that concern Malkin Tower. I fully agree that adding information about York Assizes or cannibalism charges or whatever would be out of place. But material that directly relates to Malkin Tower (such as a burglary at the location) is relevant. The article currently admirably covers the aspects you mention -- structure, location, and etymology -- but a featured article should cover all relevant aspects. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it already does cover all relevant aspects. What you're asking for is the insertion of irrelevant aspects in an effort to make the article longer, which won't be happening. Eric Corbett 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, due to problems with the lead and a lack of context. If these issues are resolved, I'll be glad to reexamine, but I am concerned by the appearance that the nominators are not interested in working with the reviewers. I note that so far, two experienced reviewer have raised concerns about material in the lead not being mentioned in the body, citations in the lead, and (depending on how you interpret J Milburn's point) an uncontextualized mention of a burglary in the toponomy section not fully described for the reader. Dismissing these concerns out of hand may not be the best way forward. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with your reasonable points, and by I am by no means uninterested with working with reviewers, as I think my record demonstrates. But IMO you're quite simply wrong in several of your comments and demands, as I've tried to explain. Eric Corbett 18:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's remotely fair to say that we're not interested in reviewers' comments or that we've dismissed them out of hand. If anyone wants to read more about the witch trials, the Association with witches section links to a very good article on that subject. The citations have been removed from the lead section and moved into the main body of the article for you. With regards to J Milburn's point above, both me and Eric have struggled to work out what he's actually trying to get us to change, we're not being purposefully stubborn or hard to work with. BigDom (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I believe the Bennett book has ISBN 978-1871236279, which would be preferable to the OCLC number. Conversely, is there an OCLC for Potts? Otherwise, regarding content, I'm also of the opinion that a mention of the burglary may be relevant. If for no other reason, the article takes some pains to discuss the likely poverty of the property, but the value of the burglary puts that into some context for the reader. I'd also prefer that the cited sentence in the lead be uncited there and instead be cited in the context of the "Associated with witches" section; however, I don't think the current structure is in violation of WP:MOSLEAD, so if the editors feel strongly about the arrangement in place now, I don't consider that point actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, the Potts source appears to be OCLC 633674946, although that does have a reprint date of 1845 versus the cited 1848, so I may have missed something. In any case, the 1613 original publication date should probably be noted somewhere in the reference. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the ISBN of Bennet's book as I can see from the back cover. Not sure why the OCLC was given instead, but it's been replaced now. 1845 is the correct date, not 1848; I guess someone mistranslated M.DCCC.XLV. I've added the OCLC. I've also bowed to the inevitable and removed the last citation from the lead in fairness to my co-nominators, although I still maintain that nothing in either the FA criteria or the MoS forbids citations in the lead. Eric Corbett 20:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone seems to be so fascinated by this burglary for whatever reason I've added a note specifying the value of goods stolen. Eric Corbett 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything remotely actionable and more are now resolved; I've gone through the available literature to the best of my ability to judge it, and don't see anything significant that was left out. There's a claim in a 2002 book about the Pendle Witches that the novelist William Harrison Ainsworth visited the site of Malkin Tower as late as 1846 or 1847 (p. 169) as part of his research for The Lancashire Witches; on the other hand, I don't see anything to indicate that Ainsworth could legitimately have known (and, thus, properly visited) the location of the structure demolished some two centuries prior, so perhaps that's irrelevant to the article. Regardless, at this point, I'm happy to support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, and of course for your support. I've been working on and off on Ainsworth, and I know that he spent some time around Pendle while researching his The Lancashire Witches, but the claim that he visited the site of Malkin Tower in the mid-19th century just doesn't hold water I don't think. Eric Corbett 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank you for your support, feel free to add any more comments if you think of anything else we could do to improve the article. BigDom (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first experience of FAC, so I've kept quiet and learnt what I can. Thanks for everyones involvement! I think the 1848 mistranslation was my mistake. My feeling on Ainsworth (given the dates) is that he visited the remains at Malkin Tower Farm. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon more examination, I think that's likely the case, and I would support adding that fact if there were any reliable sources that outright admitted it (as such a visit would demonstrate the period belief in that location's claim to the history). But as there do not seem do be, I cannot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are both fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support with nitpicks:

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/Malkin_Tower/archive1&oldid=791874579"