Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samlesbury witches/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009.

Samlesbury witches

 * Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the shortest FAC nomination ever, but neither is it the longest. Neverthless I believe it to be as complete an account as is now possible of the 17th-century trial of three women accused of witchcraft, apparently because they were not Catholics. Please be kind to Jane Southworth, Jennet Bierley, and Ellen Bierley, as kind as their judge was. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Wonderfully eccentric, and of course there were no problems as far as I could see.  ceran  thor 11:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Steve  T • C. Looks good for the most part, though I come bearing nit-picks:
 * Lead
 * I'm not wild about the opening sentence. In trying to tell us too much it leaves a couple of ambiguities. As it's not explicitly stated at this point that one trial took place for the three together, the statement "in a series of witch trials that are among the most famous in English history" makes it sound as if they were tried separately, and that these trials are what we're calling "among the most famous" (rather than Lancashire trials as a whole). At the very least, changing "in a series of" to "as part of a series of" might help.


 * I've rewritten the lead's opening to try and make it clearer that the three women were tried together, one trial in a series of trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at that again, it's not totally clear that the Samlesbury witches' trial was distinct from those called the "Pendle witch trials", partly because the linked Pendle witches article is more a summary of the "Lancashire witch trials" (indeed, it has that term as its alternate title), of which the Samlesbury witches' incident is a part.
 * That Lancashire witch trials is redirected to Pendle witch trials is a historical accident to do with the original authors of those articles. Do you think it's worth a disambiguation page? There's also the interesting case of the Padiham witch, who was tried at the same assizes. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think a more targeted redirect might help? I think that Lancashire witch trials could redirect to Pendle witch trials—which is enough of an overview of the wider context in which the Pendle trials took place—and the bolding removed from "Lancashire witch trials" in that article's lead, as it suggests that the phrase is synonymous with "Pendle witch trials". The lead of this article is probably fine if the ambiguity leading from "in a series of" can be resolved. Perhaps: "... tried at Lancaster Assizes in England on 19 August 1612 [as part of/during] a series of witch trials that are among the most famous in English history ..." Suggestion only; you're likely able to come up with something better. Steve  T • C 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go with your suggestions if that will solve the problem of ambiguity you've identified, so I've slightly rewritten the lead along the lines you suggest. In the longer run—i.e., not during this FAC—I think the best solution would be to write a proper Lancashire witch trials article, as there were more than just the trials of 1612; confusingly, the trials of 1634 are also often known as the Lancashire witch trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "all three of the Samlesbury witches were acquitted."—have there been any discussions on whether to call them "women" or "witches"? Seeing as they got off, and y'know, because witchcraft doesn't exist, would it be more accurate to say "the three Samlesbury women were acquitted"?
 * I've had this discussion on the article's talk page, but it's a good point nevertheless. I've referred to them here though as the "Samlesbury witches" because that's what Potts calls them. Elsewhere I've called them, for example "the women from Samlesbury". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ... were accused of maleficium, or causing harm by witchcraft."—very, very slight ambiguity, as someone unfamiliar with the term might think that "causing harm by witchcraft" was a separate charge, despite the comma. Resolved by using an emdash? ("... were accused of maleficium—causing harm by witchcraft.")
 * Altered as per your suggestion. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The trial of the Samlesbury witches has been described by some historians as 'largely a piece of anti-Catholic propaganda—some historians, or just one (Hasted)? What I mean is, are these Hasted's words or is she quoting the historical consensus?
 * I've rewritten a little to make it clearer what's meant. It's certainly a widely held view that the witchcraft trials of the 16th and 17th centuries had their roots in the religious turmoil of the period, but that specific statement I quoted was of course expressed by Hasted, not by "some historians". Hopefully it's better now.


 * Background
 * "[James'] keen interest in witchcraft"—comes across as too positive, almost enthusiastic, seeing as the next statement tells us he was actually suspicious of it. Unless it started out as such, perhaps it would be better to describe it as a "strong" or "intense" interest.
 * James was keenly interested in witchcraft, as evidenced by his book, and he was keen to stamp it out, hence his introduction of the death penalty. But by 1612 he had apparently become a little more sceptical of some of the evidence produced in witchcraft trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Got that; I just thought that saying "keen" made it sound as if he started out enthusiastic about witchcraft (before becoming fearful of it), but if you don't think so, then fair enough. Steve  T • C 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "though" after "By the time of the Lancashire witch trials" is doing much; the sentence seems to work just as well without it.
 * Probably is redundant, I agree, so I've removed it.
 * I think "though" is needed there, as it suggests that James' attitude may have evolved.
 * I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. Changed this to "James was, however, sceptical of the evidence presented in witch trials, even to the extent of personally exposing discrepancies in the testimonies presented against some accused witches." --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "... each justice of the peace (JP) in Lancashire was ordered to compile a list of the recusants in their area—those who refused to attend the English Church and to take communion, a criminal offence at that time."—do you think that by the time we reach "a criminal offence at that time" the focus is lost enough that a reader might have to look twice to see that we're not saying that taking communion was a criminal offence?
 * You may well be right. The "communion" thing doesn't seem all that relevant anyway, so I've changed it just to say "refused to attend the services of the Church of England". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Trial
 * The date of the trial is given in the lead, but not here.
 * Added the date. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bromley ordered the release of five before the trial began, after they had been given a warning about their future conduct."—given a warning by whom? If it was Bromley, it might as well say so.
 * The source doesn't say who issued the warning, although it almost certainly was Bromley. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Thus were these poore Innocent creatures, by the great care and paines of this honourable Judge, delivered from the danger of this Conspiracie; this bloudie practise of the Priest laid open."—whose words are these? Potts'? The statement is planted at the end of the section without attribution. Was that deliberate?
 * They are Potts' words, I'll make that clear. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster
 * The section seems to repeat an awful lot of information from Pendle witch trials; might it be better instead to present more of a summary, using the main template or similar to point to the section in the Pendle article?
 * I've moved all of The Discoverie stuff to a new article with just a short summary left in this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Modern interpretation
 * "It may be that JP Robert Holden was at least partially motivated in his investigations by a desire to 'smoke out its Jesuit chaplain', Christopher Southworth."—that Southworth (aka Thompson) was Samlesbury Hall's chaplain is stated more unequivocally here than in the "Examinations" section, which hedges its bets a little.
 * Good point. It's not absolutely certain that Christopher Southworth was the chaplain, although it's pretty likely that he was. The source is clear that Christopher Southworth was the chaplain, so I rephrase that a little. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The English experience of witchcraft was somewhat different from the European one. It has been estimated that between the early-15th and mid-18th centuries about 40,000 witches were executed in Europe, as compared to fewer than 500 in England during the same period."—the comparison (500 to 40,000) is presented as an example of how things differed in England compared to Europe, but I'm not sure that works without population statistics for context.
 * It's a bit like comparing one American state with the USA; Europe is a much larger area with a much larger population, but I'll see if I can look out some comparative population figures for those readers who may not be sure where or what Europe is. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that while most readers unfamiliar with the subject or the period can expect to know the rough sizes of England and Europe, I don't think the comparative population sizes in those centuries is something most can even guess, and so the execution figures alone don't give enough support to the English experience being much different. The conclusion could be drawn that the figure is about right—Europe executed 80 times more witches, but it's about 80 times the size too (ignoring historical border changes for a moment). Population sizes would lend much better support. It needn't be covered in the main text; perhaps a footnote would suffice. Steve  T • C 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had to think long and hard about this one, and as a result I've somewhat rewritten the offending passage. I think on reflection the 40,000 figure is focusing on the wrong aspect of the point I was trying to make; the important issues are the different systems of jurisprudence, the lack of any real witchhunting zeal (in general), and the different beliefs held in England and on the European continent (or Protestant vs Catholic views) at that time as to what wichcraft involved. Hopefully that's clearer now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That approach is a lot better; it cuts to the chase now and tells us outright what the numbers were originally only weakly implying. Steve  T • C 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "about 40,000 witches were executed"—same comment as the one I had about the lead really, that "witches" is being used as shorthand for "people accused/convicted of witchcraft". Fine if you want to do that, but it might sound odd to some.
 * I understand the point you're making, but they were tried and found guilty of witchcraft, so they were legally considered to be witches, even though we might well not consider them to be witches today. In another article I tried to make the point that witchcraft is a crime that makes no sense to a modern reader anyway, but I was forced to remove that as being too pov. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * More a general comment than anything that can be resolved, but it's a shame the aftermath only covers the clerk and the judges, and doesn't tell us what happened to the Samlesbury women and what the consequences were for the Southworths after their deception was uncovered. I guess if the sources don't say, there's nothing to be done about it.


 * As you suggest, there's nothing more recorded about the women, and because they were acquitted Samlesbury hasn't used them build a tourist industry like nearby Pendle has. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's all the weather. Steve T • C 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support An excellent and clear account of a fascinating episode in English history, well-presented and well-referenced. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - from what I could determine from the sources, everything appears to check out (although it was not a 100% complete check as, well, that is really hard to do over a weekend without having to travel). The article is encyclopedic, informative, and meets the requirements from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Review - 1. Someone may be concerned with the uncited "the most famous in English history" in the lead, but I am not. 2. Phrasing - "These Lancashire witch trials were unusual for England at that time in two respects: the official publication of the proceedings by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts, in his The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster; and in the number of the accused found guilty and hanged." You say "two respects" but you don't say respects. This is fixed by saying "in that they were officially described in a publication of the proceedings..." 3. Phrasing - "The charges against the women from Samlesbury included child murder and cannibalism, in contrast to the others being tried at the same assizes, who were accused of maleficium—causing harm by witchcraft". End the sentence at cannibalism. Start the next one - "In contrast, the others being tried at the same assizes were accused of ..." 4. "had come to the throne" - "came". 5. "and by the early 1590s" comma before "by" to separate out the parenthetical clause. 6. "a law was passed calling for the death penalty to be imposed" Why not "imposing the death penalty". "calling for" and "imposed" together makes it seem like there is no power within the law. 7. "where it was proven that harm had been caused through the use of magic, or corpses had been exhumed for magical purposes" - "where" "it was" "had been" "caused through" creates a rhetorical "wishy-washiness". How about "in cases where the use of magic or corpses had been exhumed for magical purposes was proven"? 8. "By the time of the Lancashire witch trials though, " not "Though by the time..."? 9. "attitude seems to have become more sceptical" - use of "seems" would not fit the tensing. 10. ", even to the extent of becoming personally involved" The comma is unnecessary and you would need a noun before "becoming". 11. "lawless region, an area" - semicolon would be more appropriate here. 12. "of Queen Mary, and the accession " the comma separates two connected phrases and divides a clause inappropriately. Remove the comma. 13. "priests had been forced into hiding" - "were". 14. "In early 1612" - this sentence should be moved to end the previous paragraph. 15. "had split the Southworth" just "split" is fine. 16. "recusant, and had been arrested" - the comma is inappropriate and separates two linked concepts of the same clause. 17. "did convert" - "converted". 18. "his father do not seem to have been amicable" - an odd phrasing. Use a negative word for "amicable" instead of "do not" and make sure it is in past tense ("seemed" or "appeared"). 19. "as Sir John was said" by whom? 20. "avoid it, and was reported" remove the comma and say by whom.

- Half way through and there doesn't appear to be sourcing issues so far. I will take a closer look when I have a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * 1) I've added a citation, as someone is bound to want one now that you've mentioned it.
 * 2) I don't agree with your analysis of "two respects", and I think the present phrasing is preferable.
 * 3) Altered as per your suggestion.
 * 4) Altered as per your suggestion.
 * 5) Altered as per your suggestion.
 * 6) Some rewriting along the lines suggested.
 * 7) Fixed (hopefully) in the above rewrite.
 * 8) This is similar to a point that Steve made above, and thinking about this more I think you're probably both right. I've rewritten that sentence to say "James was, however, sceptical of the evidence presented in witch trials, even to the extent of personally exposing discrepancies in the testimonies presented against some accused witches.". The problem before, I think was the residual confusion over whether James became sceptical, or whether he was always sceptical. Given his involvement in some of the 16-century Scottish witch trials I think it's fair to say that he was always sceptical. Not of witchcraft, but of the standard of evidence needed to prove it.
 * 9) As above.
 * 10) As above.
 * 11) I've made a slight copyedit there, but my understanding is that what follows a semicolon should be a complete sentence.
 * 12) Agreed, I've removed the comma.
 * 13) I think "had been forced into hiding is correct" here.
 * 14) Agreed, I've moved it.
 * OK, I'll give you that one, I've removed the "had".
 * 1) Agreed, comma removed.
 * 2) I chose "did convert" quite deliberately, as a counterpoint to his father's refusal, and I think it works in that role.
 * 3) I like the "did not seem to have been amicable", and I don't find it at all strange phrasing.
 * 4) By John Singleton, in his witness statement. I'll make that clearer.
 * 5) Removed the comma.

--Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I phrased the second one wrong. What I mean is that the first "respect" is a lengthy description but without any real statement. Two respects, so the first is a respect. Read this and see if it reads like a respect to you - "the official publication of the proceedings by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts, in his The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster". It just is a long way of say "published work". There is no mention of what makes that a respect or differs that from previous cases. Simply putting the idea that "this event was officially documented unlike any of the other trials" would turn the lengthy noun into a "respect". Does that clarify the matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree. The "respect" is "the publication of the work", i.e., that it was published, as that was very usual for the time. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But you have to say that it is a useful source of information or something else. Think of it this way - "Malleus's appreciation of cake is unusual in two respects: a book Malleus wrote; and...". Now, do you understand what what is "unusual" about "a book Malleus wrote"? That is how I feel about the above sentence as phrased. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if that proves to be a general opinion then I'll have to go along with it I suppose, but for the moment I think my version works perfectly well. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can take or leave my comments as you will. :) Now, after my eyes stop bleeding I will attempt to review the rest of the page or do something constructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Review part 2
 * 1. Comma needed - "On 21 March 1612 Alizon Device," A comma needs to denote the parenthetical clause after "March". Otherwise, 21 March 1612 Alizon Device reads as one long noun phrase. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Comma needed - "and a few minutes later Law suffered" The phrase "a few minutes later" is a parenthetical clause and should be denoted with commas or the phrase could be moved to after "suffered a stroke" if you don't want as many commas. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Comma needed - "Based on the evidence and confessions he obtained Nowell committed Alizon" A comma needs to follow "obtained" to denote the parenthetical clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Comma needed - "and on 15 April 1612 JP Robert Holden" See number "2" above for denoting the parenthetical or moving it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. Phrasing/clause confusion - "The trial was held on 19 August 1612 before Sir Edward Bromley,[23] a judge seeking promotion to a circuit nearer London, and so may have been keen to impress King James, the head of the judiciary." Graphically, the sentence would read Subject-Descriptive (1st parenthetical statement, 2nd parenthetical statement compounded (3rd parenthetical statement)). As you can see, it is a little confusing. Instead, add a period after "Bromley" and rewrite - "As a judge seeking promotion to a circuit closer to London, he may have been keep to impress King James, the head of the judiciary." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. Vagueness - "before the trial began, after a warning about their future conduct." The "before" and then "after" causes confusion and the use of "future conduct" is vague. Try "before the trial began with a warning against future misconduct." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7. Phrasing - "chief prosecution witness" Not the "prosecution's chief witness"? "chief" seems to most appropriately characterize "witness" and not "prosecution", especially with "prosecution" serving as an adjective in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8. Word choice - "Grace was the first to give evidence." Not "testify"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. Comma needed - "In her statement she" Denote the parenthetical clause with a comma following "statement". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 Phrasing - "She claimed they transported" Why not "that they"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11. Phrasing - "by her hair, and tried to persuade her" Was the persuasion accomplished on the hayrick as suggested by the phrasing? If not, try "by her hair and then tried to persuade". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12. Word choice - "had taken her to the house" and "they had stolen" - "took her" and "they stole". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13. Phrasing - "suck its blood" is "suck" the best word or would "drink" be more appropriate? Suck invokes a vampiric image that would not arise until 200 years after. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14. Comma use - "Grace alleged the child died the following night, and that after its burial at Samlesbury Church Ellen and Jennet" The commas are denoting the wrong clauses. Instead, remove the comma after "night", add one after "that", and add one after "Church". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15. Phrasing - "some of it" is "it" appropriate for a dead child? Try "body" or "corpse", which would also invoke the horror that accompanied the original testimony. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16. Context - "Grace alleged" - When - "after"? "also" if placement isn't known? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 17. Word choice - "attended sabbats held every" Try "witches' sabbats" instead to clarify to the audience without forcing them to dig if they do not understand the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 18. Phrasing - "was the next to give evidence." - "provide evidence" or "testify" would seem to be more technically pleasing than "give". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 19. Clause confusion - "He confirmed that his child had died of unknown causes at about one-year-old, and added that Grace Sowerbutts had been discovered lying as if dead in his father's barn on about 15 April, and did not recover until the following day" Try - "He confirmed that his child, about one-year-old, had died of unknown causes. He added that Grace Sowerbutts was discovered lying as if dead in his father's barn on about 15 April and did not recover until the following day." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 20. Tense - "records that" Everything else in the article appears to be in a type of past tense except for Potts related verbs. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 21. Clause confusion - "However, before passing sentence, Bromley asked the women what answer" You begin with two parenthetical clauses. Try "However, Bromley asked the women, before passing sentence, what..." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 22. Clause confusion - "aka Thompson, a Jesuit priest who was in hiding in the Samlesbury area;[34] Southworth was the chaplain at Samlesbury Hall,[35] and Jane Southworth's uncle by marriage." A very complex way of phrasing and allows for clause confusion. End the previous sentence and start with "Also known as Thomas", he was a Jesuit priest hiding in Salmesbury area while serving as the chaplain at Samlesbury Hall and was Jane Southworth's uncle by marriage." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 23. Tense - "it had been under secret government surveillance" "was" instead of "has been" would clarify the phrase. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 24. Phrasing - "only one real mass witchhunt" That is a long list of descriptives. Is "real" necessary? Or does "real" modify the modifier "mass"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 25. Phrasing - "accounted for more than 20% of the fewer than 500 witches" "more than" "fewer than" is rhetorically confusing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * -That should be everything Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * 1) There is no "parenthetical clause after 'March.
 * 2) I think "and a few minutes later Law suffered" is fine as it is.
 * 3) Added the comma as suggested.
 * 4) Don't agree, as per 1.
 * 5) Altered to "and who may therefore have been keen to impress King James".
 * 6) "before the trial began with a warning against future misconduct" doesn't work, as the trial didn't begin with a warning against future conduct. Rewritten as "Before the trial began, Bromley ordered the release of five of the eight defendants from Samlesbury, with a warning about their future conduct."
 * 7) I'd suggest that "prosecution witness" is a compound noun, and that "chief prosecution witness" is perfectly idiomatic phrasing.
 * 8) I think "give evidence" is more accurate than "testify", because in 17th-century English courts witnesses didn't usually give evidence, the statement they'd made to the magistrates earlier were simply read out. Potts' account of the trial isn't entirely accurate from a jurisprudence perspective, so whether Grace "testified" or not isn't clear. Probably she didn't.
 * 9) Don't agree that a comma is needed here, or even desirable.
 * 10) Changed to "that they".
 * 11) Transporting her by the hair to the top of a hayrick and persuading her to drown herself were two separate incidents, which I've clarified.
 * 12) I think "had taken her to the house" and "had stolen" is correct, as the alternative "took" leaves open the possibility that they did so repeatedly.
 * 13) "Suck" is the word that Grace uses in her statement: "... and afterwards did take a pen and put it in at the said place, and did suck there a good space".
 * 14) Moved comma as suggested.
 * 15) I think "it" for body/baby is appropriate here. Grace in her statement also uses the word "it", for "child".
 * 16) Just another one of the allegations in Grace's statement. I've changed it to "also alleged".
 * 17) Changed to "witches' sabbats".
 * 18) Giving evidence is a perfectly normal description: "I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
 * 19) Altered as per suggestion.
 * 20) Rewritten as: "On being asked by the judge what answer they could make to the charges laid against them ...".
 * 21) I think "Potts reports" is OK, as it's not Potts himself I'm referring to, it's his book, which still reports the facts as they're presented.
 * 22) I think the present text is more accurate than your suggested alternative. Christopher wasn't just in hiding "while" he was chaplain at Samlesbury Hall, he was a member of the Southworth family who lived at Samlesbury Hall, so may well have been in hiding there whether or not he was its chaplain.
 * 23) Changed "had been" to "was", as suggested.
 * 24) I've changed "only one real mass witchhunt" to "only one really mass witchhunt". The exact phrase used by the source is "one really mass witch-craze".
 * 25) Changed to "That one incident alone accounted for more than 20% of the number of witches it is estimated were executed in England between the early 15th and mid-18th century, fewer than 500."

--Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the "March" is part of the clause - i.e. "On 21 March 1612". A parenthetical clause is a dependent phrase that is added to clarify or modify, but can be removed and the rest of the sentence still reads as a complete sentence (i.e. it is not essential to the independent clause). Not denoting the parenthetical clauses would cause grammatical confusion, especially when you have nouns (the month, per this example) along side of subjects and objects. Also, the "evidence" is not the important part - the "give" sounds inappropriate. "Provide" sounds like a more appropriate word. Provide implies that it was made available and it was taken, whereas the "gives" has a more active role that would place her more in a rhetorical position of a prosecutor or a judge than as a witness. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your analysis. "On 21 March, 1612" woul dbe comma madness. There is no ambiguity that needs to be resolved by introducing commas. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The comma would go after the date. You wouldn't divide the date. >.< Let me break it down for you pictorially so you can understand what I am saying: "On 21 March 1612 Alizon Device, who lived just outside the Lancashire village of Fence, near Pendle Hill,[18] encountered John Law, a pedlar from Halifax."
 * The subject is "Alizon Device". The verb is "encountered". The object is "John Law". That is the sentence. The phrase "On 21 March 1612", "who lived just outside the Lancashire village of Fence", and "a pedlar from Halifax" are dependent clauses since they lack the proper Noun/Verb phrase structure. Dependent clauses that modify/clarify the main independent clause are parenthetical statements. You denote them with commas as to not confuse the parenthetical with the Subject/Object of the sentence. Thus, the noun phrase "21 March 1612" must be separated out with commas or it will be confused with the noun phrase "Alizon Device". As a picture, it would be N + N, descriptive, V O, descriptive. Even when you read the line aloud, you instinctively add a pause after the first noun phrase so it does not run into the subject/noun phrase that follows. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly about this Ottava then please go ahead and change the sentence as you see fit; it works perfectly well for me as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not going to oppose anyone over any of these nor force anyone to take them. :P You just said you didn't understand what the reason is. The English teacher in me demands that I explain it until you get what was being said. Rules can be broken and are quite often. However, there is normally a rationale for the rule. :) The above is done to separate out dependent clauses and ensure that there isn't grammatical confusing. After all, English is not an inflective language that marks its subjects and objects. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that Ottava, and to be clear I don't dispute the accuracy of your technical analysis, nor am I properly qualified to understand it, but my view on comma useage has always been "if in doubt, leave it out", and I just don't see any plausible confusion here that needs to be resolved by the addition of a comma. Anyway, thanks for all the work you've put into this review, much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would have supported before I started listing things. :P The above allows me to prove that I have actually looked at the article instead of people assuming that I support your articles simply because we've worked together quite a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who believed that you and I might be in cahoots over an article review doesn't really know either of us very well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, I have to make you suffer - it isn't fair you get five supports in five days. :P My article on one of the greatest poems ever written is stagnant at just two supports and no other reviews because it lacks the appeal of witchery. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I'd be really nitpicking, the improvements I noted were so minor. Good read, I think we're over the line here (or in the pentagram or whatever :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This was an interesting and well told, if somewhat depressing read. Only one real niggle - and which also involved the Pendle witches. What? Who? Its a bit tacked on and unclearly phrased. Other than that; good, yep. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Pendle witches are significant because of the ordering of the trials, and also because they're far better known than the Samlesbury witches. I'll have a think about how the wording in the lead could be made clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a non sequitur at present,  was one in a series of witch trials....English history...which also included those of the more well-known.... I'd reword, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. Otherwise the page is lovely. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's a non-sequitor, but all it's trying to say is that the trial of the Samlesbury witches was one in a series in which the Pendle witches were also tried. Perhaps we're missing a Lancashire witchcraft trials article. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to beat such a minor stick, but the sentence, to me, reads: a series of trials that were of a series which (1) were among the most famous in English history (2) and included those of the more well-known Pendle witches. Inclusive. This is very easily fixed'; I dont like back forth on such a minor issue when otherwise the article is stong; very good work here. Ceoil (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The nominator has tackled or successfully rebutted all the issues I spotted, and it meets everything at WP:FACR as far as I can tell, so I'm more than happy to support its promotion. Looking at the little that's been written about these women, this article is probably the finest single resource available anywhere, and is an interesting read to boot. Nice work, Steve  T • C 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.