Talk:Survey of Scottish Witchcraft

Need to take more care
I think that Wikipedians in residence really ought to take more care than is exhibited in this new article. I've corrected the most egregious errors, including the claim that this an open source project, but it's still rather poorly written. For instance, what is "Firstly, because a map showing where the accused was made public after work at the University of Edinburgh by Ewan McAndrew, Wikimedian in Residence, and Emma Carroll, a geology and physical geography undergraduate" supposed to mean? Where the accused what? Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article needs a little finessing is all, it is a new article by a new editor so we need to be mindful of couching any improvements to meet Wikipedia's style/requirements in an encouraging fashion. It can always be moved to draft if need be if notability etc. needs worked on. I've refrained from working on it as I'm mentioned in it so was hoping others with greater impartiality here could decide about what needs done about the article based on its merits. Stinglehammer (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt that readers are concerned with the feelings of the editor, but perhaps we can begin by demonstrating how this article meets the general notability guidelines? In which reliable sources has it received significant coverage? Would you argue that your mention in the article is anything other than fancruft? Dr Horncastle (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's obvious beyond any doubt that this article meets WP:N, given the amount of coverage. I would encourage you to adopt a more collegiate attitude to improving this article, if that is indeed what you have come here to do. Jwslubbock (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why is there no evidence presented of this supposed amount of coverage? I would also draw your attention to the comment below by Pigsonthewing, as you seem to be suggesting that only some new editors are worthy of your consideration. Dr Horncastle (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a paper in a peer-reviewed book that discusses the survey in depth. That coupled with the more recent news coverage comfortably satisfies the notability guidelines. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a somewhat helpful start, of course, but where is this "more recent news coverage"? The paper you mention raises another point I meant to bring up, which is the quality of the database, which is not discussed in this article. I quote: "The lack of consistent documentation for witchcraft accusation and prosecution creates difficulties in using the database (and the underlying source materials) to draw conclusions about early modern witch-craft." I also note that my point about the fancruft trivia remains unaddressed. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the news coverage is referenced in the Wikipedia article. If you want more there's The Scotsman, Smithsonian, and The Guardian as a sample.
 * As for 'fancruft', could you elaborate on your point? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. "... an interactive map showing where the accused witches resided was made public after work at the University of Edinburgh by Ewan McAndrew, Wikimedian in Residence, and Emma Carroll, a geology and physical geography undergraduate." What work exactly? Dr Horncastle (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Scotsman article doesn't mention this database, and neither does the Smithsonian, which refers to an unrelated map that "features an array of previously unpublished data, much of which was extracted from historical records by undergraduate Emma Carroll and uploaded to Wikidata, a public database created by the team behind Wikipedia. The Guardian article isn't about this database either, merely mentions its existence briefly in passing. Dr Horncastle (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear on how that constitutes fancruft, but it could be my tired brain is missing the point. However, the map is an extension of the survey, it is simply another way of interacting with the data within. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, all. Ive made a few grammatical improvements, which i hope is helpful. With the recent media coverage this has received i would say it definitely meets the notability criteria. Happy to work with others to improve the article further if there is agreement it's needed. Cheers! Jason.nlw (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "I doubt that readers are concerned with the feelings of the editor" I don't doubt that that is correct, but we as editors are required to be; see WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What a fascinating insight! Dr Horncastle (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Media attention in October 2019 section merely trivia? What does the reconstruction of a face tell us about the database? Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Contray to the protestations above, Dr Horncastle was not a new editor; and has now been blocked as a sock puppet. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)