Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pendle witch trials


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 29 July 2008.

Pendle witch trials

 * Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum (talk)

I've been working on this article on and off for some time, and now I think it's ready to be considered for promotion to FA. I hope you agree. The Pendle witch trials are among the best-known and best-documented of the 17th-century English witch trials, thanks to an official published account written by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Support with minor reservations : The article is very informative and well-sourced. I have only a handful of concerns that no doubt can be quickly addressed: Otherwise I think this is a great little article. I like the family tree illustrations (much preferred than repeatedly referencing family members in the prose) and the tables at the bottom. I think the graphics and illustrations are adequate for an article of this length, and the three web sources present I believe are appropriate for the information referenced. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations: Since the sources provided are mostly published references, I cannot determine off-hand whether the citations provided source all the material proceeding them. For example, in the first paragraph under "Religious and political background", the article claims that James I "had become convinced that he was being plotted against by Scottish witches" and other surprising details of his fascination with witchcraft. Yet the next source provided doesn't come until three sentences later when a citation is provided about a new anti-witchcraft law. I'm sure the sourcing is adequate, but on first read it just seems like a lot of information to come from a single page in a book.
 * I'll check and increase the citation density where necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph under "Religious and political background" is a bit unclear, at least to me. I'm not certain what "King James' attitude towards witchcraft was perhaps difficult to understand for the two judges hearing the trials of the Pendle witches" means. What I gather it to mean, given the surrounding text, is that the jurists who were to hear the cases might not have been clear as to what the King actually thought to be witchcraft, and that somehow this led to the wrongful execution of the nine accused...
 * I meant it to mean that the judges weren't certain which course of action would gain them favour with the king; whether to be sceptical in examining the evidence, or to encourage the convictions. I've rewritten the last paragraph to try and make that clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Awkward sentence here: "The event which seems to have triggered Nowell's investigation, culminating in the Pendle witch trials, occurred on 21 March 1612, when Alizon Device encountered John Law."
 * I've rewritten that sentence, hopefully better now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Given the revisions, the article appears to be a great FA candidate. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All images are appropriately tagged and licensed. —Giggy 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll just note the assumption (at least on my part) is that any information given before a footnote is sourced to that footnote, whether it's one phrase or a whole paragraph. That's been the assumption for my FACs, also. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my assumption too, and I've double-checked to make sure that's the case with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support tried hard to find something with which to bring an opposition with, but to me, this is a flawless piece, and an enjoyable, informative read. MOS, CITE and IMAGE compliant (AFAICT). Well done, --Jza84 | Talk  12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: This is a very interesting article about a subject I previously knew nothing about. Although well written and obviously well sourced, I'm not sure the lead section gives an adequate summary of the entire article.  In areas it is a little too detailed (One of the accused, Jennet Preston, lived in Gisburn, just over the border from Pendle, in Yorkshire) and some of the information (fewer than 500 witches were executed, so this one series of trials over three days in the summer of 1612 accounts for more than 2% of that total) is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.  The "Modern interpretation" and "Aftermath and legacy" sections are not represented nor is Thomas Potts' written account, which seems to be a major part of its legacy, is not explained.  Because of these deficiencies, I think the lead should be rewritten. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the lead as per your suggestions. Hopefully it's closer to what you have in mind now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I have read several books on this particular subject and this article provides an excellent summary of all the major points that need to be covered. An enjoyable read, and highly informative.-- Seahamlass  18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I have seen this article after the suggestions made on this page have been incorporated into it. It reads well, conforms to MoS issues, and its coverage is very good and detailed enough. I think it deserves to succeed here.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Firm Oppose for now : Generally good and comprehensive, but needs retouching at a number of points to make FA standard, plus more depth and better flow. The sources are very thin for an FA, nearly all of them being papers in the same book. After that we are down to the Pocket Essentials The History of Witchcraft. The nominator seems unprepared to improve the article, or even to believe that is possible, so progress seems unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "William Harrison Ainsworth, a Victorian novelist considered in his day the equal of Dickens ..." (repeated later) - no such claim at his article & I very much doubt this was a generally held view.
 * I would suggest that whatever is claimed at his wikipedia article is irrelevant. The claim is fully supported by reference to a respectable academic source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually "Richards 2002" is not in the refs. Where is that link supposed to go? Is he an Eng Lit academic? Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The link's there now. He's Professor of Cultural History at the University of Lancaster. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prof Stephen Carver, who wrote the book on Ainsworth says "His brief period as Scott's successor in the eyes of the press after Rookwood had also given way to Dicken's meteoric rise, a literary superiority to which Ainsworth cheerfully deferred" here. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That does not contradict the information to which you appear to have some objection. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "the people of Pendle remained largely faithful to their Roman Catholic beliefs and openly reverted to Catholicism on Queen Mary's ascent to the throne in 1553." - the great majority of the population did so, under intense government pressure.
 * Forgive me, but that sounds like an opinion, WP:OR even, and it is not what the sources used claim. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's GCSE history. What you have is like saying people were "openly" obeying the speed limit. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I am going to stick with what the cited source says though, if that's all the same to you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Protestant establishment, however, regarded Catholic practices as little more than conjuring, and their prayers as charms.[2]" Reference or not, this is an unacceptably crude way to describe the very complicated attitudes of "the Protestant establishment" in 1612. Such views were much more likely to be held by non-conformists, themselves also practicing a form of religion heavily discriminated against by the Govenment.
 * Perhaps. But until you write your book I'd prefer to go with the sources. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. We'd better have a quotation then. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise that you have some vested interest in any article that mentions the word "Catholic", but everything in that sentence to which you are apparently objecting is appropriately attributed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Link Anne of Denmark
 * Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * " but he had recently been accused of a miscarriage of justice at the York Assizes, which had resulted in a woman being sentenced to death by hanging for witchcraft" needs clarifying. Presumably:"but he had recently been accused of a miscarriage of justice at the York Assizes, when he had sentenced a woman to death by hanging for witchcraft"
 * That would be going beyond what the source actually claims; it doesn't say that Altham had sentenced a woman to death, although one could speculate that's what had happened. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it reads very oddly now - are there no refs in the source to follow up? Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Neighbouring Cheshire, for instance, also suffered from economic problems and religious activists" - there must be better ways of putting this!
 * Do you have a suggestion? It seems perfectly fine to me as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cheshire suffered from religious activists" - You're perfectly happy with that? Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfectly happy, yes. What would you suggest as an alternative? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did the "witches" actually live? Were they actually recusants?
 * They lived in the area around Pendle, as I thought the article made clear. Can you suggest any way of making that clearer? Whether or not they were recusants is unrecorded, although one could speculate that they very likely were. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody lives on Pendle Hill itself, and the now largely vanished forest of Pendle is ill-defined. I see you removed, after a comment above, the fact that one lived at Gisburn. Don't we have better information on the others? Where was Malkin Tower for example? Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really struggling to understand your point. The "witches" lived in the area around Pendle Hill. Nobody knows precisely where Malkin Tower was, other than that it was somewhere in the Pendle area. It has long since disappeared. I only removed the "Gisburn" fact from the lead, after an earlier objection about there being too much detail in the lead. It is still there in the Trials section. The Gisburn fact was in any case only relevant to explain why one of the accused was tried at York Assizes but the others were tried at Lancaster. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit more on the wider perspectives of what modern historians make of the witch trial phenomenon is needed really.
 * My view is that this article is not the appropriate place for that wider discussion. The pupose of this article, in my view, is to explain the Pendle witch trials. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But without more context I don't think you can succeed in that, to FA standard anyway. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'm afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The prose is sometimes a bit clogged up, though I would not oppose on this alone.

Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could give an example of where the prose is "clogged"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The third para of the lead will do for an example. I realize there are lots of relationships and facts to get in, but this & many other passages make for a knotty read. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again we will have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Comments - Very interesting article. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any information about the kind of evidence that Jennet Device gave, beyond just naming people who attended the meeting?
 * There is, and I'll expand a little on that where appropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not that fond of the tabular format of the trials. That is a large chunk of the article text, and I think it would be better served in prose.
 * How strongly do you feel about the table format? I quite like it (obviously), but I'm not wedded to it if you see it as being problematic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What was the result of Jennet Device's later trial? Was she found guilty or not guilty?
 * The evidence is sparse, not helped by the fact that many of Lancashire's court records were destroyed by fire. It's not absolutely certain that it was the same Jennet Device who was tried for witchcraft in 1634, but most researchers seem to believe that it likely was. The result of the trial was that she was found guilty, but the judges refused to pass the death sentence and referred the case to king. Device was detained in Lancaster jail, and was recorded as still being there in 1636. Nothing else seems to be known about her; the most likely outcome is that she died in jail. I'll expand on that a little, as it does round off Jennet Device's story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Summary I believe that all of the actionable comments have now been addressed, perhaps with the exception of one. I am unwilling to extend the scope of this article to include a discussion of the general witch trial phenomenon because I believe that would be better described elsewhere, as in fact it is. This article is about a specific event that happened in the summer of 1612, in what was then a remote part of England. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.