Talk:Bury St. Edmunds witch trials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Bury St. Edmunds witch trials has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article uses British english dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article needs a lot of work, but much of the content can be found at the webpage in the external links, because it goes to the primary source text about the trials. Ogram 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] progress

beginning to take shape, a few hard to get reference / history books to find and hopefully more on its way. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll help you with some cleanup in the article- I'll try my best to leave as much of your text as I can. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Just a few thoughts after looking at your article-

  1. You need a beginning lead paragraph (see WP:LEAD). Examine a lot of other featured articles and see how it is done.
  2. Get rid of the timeline and replace it with paragraphs outlining in chronological order as you have done during the trials you talk about in depth. Timelines are great, but you can't substitute words for them.
  3. Make sure all links are used under the ref tags- you http linked your reference to http://www.lowestoftwitches.com/report_notes.htm rather than use ref tags, which explains the awkward 2 link after your note 3.
  4. Use the best possible sources- watch out for suspect internet sites that may lead you astray. Take advantage of Google books if you cannot find library books or can't buy references.
  5. When positioning your pictures, make sure they are in the right places. When one bleeds over into another section, make it smaller or move it to the other side. Once again, look at the featured articles to see how to do it.

I really hope this feedback helps- I had never heard of witch trials in England at that time. Very cool! Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

More detail later, just first impression

  1. The heading system is very odd - why a "history" heading (wrongly capitalised too), when it's all history? Why has "later trials" got a higher level heading than its predecessors?
  2. I don't like the lead. I'd move the detail about jurisdiction to the text, as a new first heading, add a bit about legacy (see next comment)
  3. The nom comment said influential and changed the law -I can't see any mention of this.
  4. needs copyediting and link checking. cooper is a disamb page, double full stop in ref 1, "mother and daughter" capitalised incorrectly in "later trials" (if it's a quote, used quotation marks). Second sentence of Thomas Browne bit is garbled.
  5. Was Hopkins officially the witch finder general?
  6. The Intelligencer paper - "published" rather than "existed"?

maybe more on a detailed read through, but the above should give a start. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

first replies

  • (1) it was to highlight and seperate the two more well known trials but Y Done
  • (4) stupid, thought I had checked everything, sorry..Y Done

Second sentence of Thomas Browne bit is garbled. - sorry not sure what you mean - the layout was decided by someone else reviewing it, the italics are the modern translations of his quote.

  • (5 and 6) Y Done
I've fixed the Browne sentence, tweaked some other minor issues. I've reformatted the headings and removed surplus white space. Note that headings shouldn't repeat the title, so I've done that too Thanks
There doesn't appear to be a verb in the Intelligencer sentence prior to the quote Y Done
The parenthesis at the end of the Browne quote, together with the preceding colon unfortunately looks like a smiley :)hopefully sorted, I know I had noticed that as well.
Legacy I think is still the main issue. At present, this article has some limited back-context, although that could be expanded, but no commentary on its relevance to subsequent developments. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)more research to be undertaken then. Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the rambling and repetitive Salem bit, moved it, and made some other minor tweaks

[edit] Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: