Wikipedia:Peer review/George Pickingill/archive1

George Pickingill
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently achieved GA status and I am hoping to take it to FAC in the near future. I don't think that it needs much work but it would be great it I could have another pair of eyes look it over to see if there is anything that needs doing.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a small comment here and hope someone else does a proper detailed review. I've taken a brief look at it and think its of great structure, reference formatting and prose. I couldn't do a in-depth review of it because I lack FA experience and the topic is too alien to me. Here's one thing which may or may not be helpful: The sections here are very lengthy and (may be) off-putting to the readers. Is it possible to split them into more subsections? Particularly "Magical activities" and "Liddell's account". Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of splitting the longer sections is an interesting one, and I can see the benefits, although it might have the draw-back of cluttering the page a little and dividing up blocks of information that flow together smoothly. Further opinions on this issue from other editors would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This has come a long way since the AFC by 84.69.238.22 using source http://www.controverscial.com/Old%20George%20Pickingill.htm ! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM
A really interesting topic- it's especially nice to see this based on good, scholarly sources, when it would be so easy to fill it up with very suspect material. If I can express any concerns I have now, I would be happy to support once you nominate.


 * Could you say a little about the reliability of the Wallworth source? It comes across as just another website.
 * The website itself (Deadfamilies.com) does not seem to be hugely noteworthy (although I'd say that it does constitute a reliable source, at least under Wikipedia definitions of reliability). However, this individual (William Wallworth) does seem to have spent a lot of time researching the life and times of Pickingill using old records, to an extent that no other scholar has done, and further he has provided his findings online for free. This information has not appeared anywhere else, to my knowledge. His webpage on Pickingill is therefore absolutely invaluable for our purposes here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I worry that without some kind of clearer account of the reliability of the website, the reputability of the author or a definitely reliable source referring to this page, we have a bit of a problem, here. I'm not sure if it's easily solvable. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the thing about William Wallworth's website is that all his research is replicable, he has gone to official records and provided photographs and facsimiles of things like birth certificates. There is no good reason to doubt his work. If necessary it could be used with a hedge "Amateur researcher William Wallworth says" sor tof thing but I think that would really beonly necessary if his work was disputed by anyone as to factual accuracy or if his interpetation as opposed to data collection was used. Jeremy (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * From the image caption- does "Owned by Lillian Garner" refer to the physical photograph or the copyright of the image? Obviously, the two may well be different. (It's a shame we don't know the original author- I would guess that it's almost certainly PD, but I think that would be difficult to prove without knowing who took it or finding an earlier publication date.)
 * I've changed the prose here to "Photograph of Pickingill taken in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. The original copy was owned by Lillian Garner, who allowed for it to be first published by Maple; in 1977 she gave her copy to Michael Howard." How does that read ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pickingill's biography has been gathered from parish records and census data." This sounds like OR- do you have a reliable source saying this? If so, it should be mentioned (and sourced) in the main body of the article.
 * Personally I don't think that it constitutes Original research, largely because it did not entail any research on my behalf and does not provide an "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Instead, it is a simple observation (made very apparent on the Wallworth webpage), that he has outlined Pickingill's biography based on parish records and census data. But I am certainly open to further discussion on the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be your interpretation of the sources and/or a claim that is not actually made by the sources. It seems a perfectly reasonable claim, but I don't think it's one that we can make unless a source explicitly makes it. Perhaps you could summarise the following paragraph by saying something like "Pickingill spent much of his life in Essex, where he worked as a farm labourer." Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed "Pickingill's biography has been gathered from parish records and census data." I think that it works well in the lede, but your concerns are valid and they will no doubt be raised again at FAC. As I'm unable to obtain a direct citation I think that the only course of action is to remove the passage entirely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Moving back to Essex, where the couple eventually settled in Canewdon, they had four children." Could this be rephrased?
 * I'm certainly open to suggestions, although I would be cautious lest we make it seem like they moved straight from Kent to Canewdon, which (from the data available), they may well not have done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed this to "Moving back to Essex, the couple settled in Canewdon and had four children." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That works- alternatively, something like simply "The couple moved back to Essex, eventually settling in Canewdon, and had four children." might work. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I worry that the focus on Liddell's claims in the lead could be interpreted as giving undue weight to a fringe view, especially as his claims have been refuted by prominent scholars writing in peer-reviewed publications.
 * A valid concern, certainly. However, I have allocated it the space that it has because of the amount of attention that it has received; while it is a fringe perspective (no doubt about it), many Wiccans and academics have felt the need to comment on it. According to WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." While the Liddell claims are fringe in that no academics and few people actually accept them as being accurate, they are nevertheless prominent in terms of the attention that they have received; indeed, I personally suspect that most people who have heard about Pickingill have done so through the Liddell claims rather than the work of Maple. Further, given the attention that Liddell's claims have actually received, a considerable portion of the article is devoted to them, which does accord with the length of the paragraph that they receive in the lede. As such, I personally favour things as they are, but again I'm open to discussion on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Perhaps you could work in the fact that his claims are academically discredited to the first line on which it's mentioned- that way, you've got a "sandwich" of criticism- The claims are introduced as discredited, then those who dispute them are listed. This may help offset the concern? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read Hutton's comments on Liddell's claims in TOTM you will see that Hutton goes out of his way to make clear that they cannot be refuted. Hutton gives reasons for why he does not beleive them, but he does not disbelieve them all equally as he also makes clear. The picture is still being filled in. As Hutton also remarks Liddell's claims have in any case founded a tradition of practice.Jeremy (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've found it difficult to integrate it into the first line of that paragraph, but I've been able to include it in the second with the addition of "– which has failed to receive any scholarly support –". I hope that helps the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "including Pickengill, Pickingale, Pickengal, Pettingale, Pitengale, and Pittengale" I think, here, the spellings should be italicised- see WP:WORDSASWORDS
 * Agreed, and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "and described his profession as that of a farm labourer" How about "and described himself as a farm labourer by profession"?
 * Good alternative; changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "her death, aged 63" As written, the claim is that the death was aged 63
 * I've gone with "Pickingill's wife died at the age of 63 in Canewdon; her death was..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "a sensational popular history of witchcraft" Perhaps "sensationalist"? "sensational" can simply mean "very good", colloquially.
 * Agreed; in fact, I thought that I had originally written "sensationalist"... anyway I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pickingill was also known for his ability to control animals"- "purported" or "supposed", perhaps?
 * I've gone with "purported" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "horse-whispering" Link or explanation, perhaps?
 * Here at Wikipedia, horse whispering just links to natural horsemanship, which is something different from what we are referring to here. I considered linking to the Society of the Horseman's Word, but given that no one has ever mentioned Pickingill actually being a member of the Society, it could be misleading. Thus, rather than linking horse-whispering I have gone for an added explanation instead: "the power of horse-whispering; the magical ability to command horses to do his bidding" Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need more in the lead concerning the challenges to the idea that he was a cunning man at all. Right now, the article seems to be biased in favour of the view that he practiced magic, when it seems that there are plausible (IE, non-fringe) views that he did not.
 * I can't agree that there are plausible challenges that he wasn't cunning man at all. Citations for that? Seriously, citations for that? Cite or remove I think!Jeremy (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Other than my first comment above, I'm of the view that the sourcing has been used very judiciously. I intend to have a snoop around to see if there are any other sources, but that's everything for now. Really enjoyable read. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree, and initially the article did adopt a more critical stance on this issue, but over at the article's talk page, User:Jeremytrewindixon suggested that I should remove the wording that implies that there is doubt, because reputable sources like Hutton and Davies defended the idea of Pickingill as cunning man; I wasn't in the mood to argue and accepted his reasoning, but now that you have raised the subject again, I would be happy to support some minor changes here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have altered the opening paragraph accordingly. It now says "Widely considered a cunning man", thus reflecting the doubt about this claim which has been raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "lamented" is a bit non-neutral
 * Agreed I have replaced it with "stated" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "described as being 103 years old, his cause of death" Similarly to above, this reads as "his cause of death" was "described as being 103 years old"
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "both the Essex Newsman and The Times asserted" Personification; how about "it was claimed in both...". Also "newspaper The Star, which described him" could be "newspaper The Star, in which he was described"
 * Agreed again, and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Maple asserted that Pickingill" asserted has a slightly negative connotation. How about simply "According to Maple, Pickingill..."?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are either The Wiccan or The Cauldron worth (red)linking? For that matter, how about Folklore? An academic journal that old is almost certainly notable. Wiccan Publications, too, is worth considering?
 * I've linked The Wiccan, The Cauldron, and Folklore, but doubt that Wiccan Publications are worthy of a link; they are certainly not a prominent publisher within the Pagan community. (Oh, and it looks like someone has already created The Cauldron as an article.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Liddell's claims regarding Pickingill are not all consistent, and are sometimes self-contradictory." Tautological?
 * True. I've made a correction to the prose here by cutting out "not all consistent". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "to this end he collaborated with Satanists and included Satanic elements" Links? What is meant by "Satanist" and/or "Satanic elements" in this context?
 * I can add links to Theistic Satanism, but there is great problem here in that (as far as I am aware) there is no evidence that the 19th century Satanists whom Liddell seems to refer to ever actually existed. That's not to say that they didn't (certainly there were poets and other literary figures employing Satanic elements in their work in this century), but I don't think that there is any real evidence that their were Satanic covens active in Victorian Britain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed some of the dashes in the article, but now I'm worried that I've done wrong. Based on WP:DASH, I think that when you're using dashes to clarify sentence structure, it should be an unspaced- the example given is "We read them in chronological order: Descartes, Locke, Hume—but not his Treatise (it is too complex)—and Kant."
 * "innovations into English witch-cult by" Odd construction?
 * I suspect that it was originally "English witchcraft", and then got changed to "English witch-cult" without the necessary "the" being inserted. I have added the "the" in there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "on Classical sources." Link? What is meant by "Classical" in this context?
 * I've added a link to Classical antiquity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "asserting that his own great-grandmother had studied under Pickingill and thus been introduced to Crowley;" Is there a missing word, here?
 * Initially I didn't think so, but reading it back I can see that a "had" could be inserted to improve the prose. Done! Midnightblueowl (talk)
 * "Historian Ronald Hutton also scrutinised Liddell's claims, although asserted that" Again, I'm a little uncomfortable with claiming that academics "assert" things which are published in academic works. It comes across as judgmental in a manner we should avoid in Wikipedia articles.
 * Changed to "added". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "He added that while agreeing with Maple's assessment that Pickingill was "one of the last practising cunning-folk in the country", he stressed that Pickingill was not one of the "major regional figure[s]" such as Murrell, James Tuckett, John Wrightson, or William Brewer." Odd phrasing- could this be looked at?
 * I've rephrased this as "While agreeing with Maple's assessment that Pickingill was "one of the last practising cunning-folk in the country", Maple noted that – unlike Murrell, James Tuckett, John Wrightson, and William Brewer – Pickingill was not a "major regional figure" in the profession." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Richard Ward asserted that Lugh's claims did not stand up under scrutiny" Again- How about "argued", rather than "asserted"?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Liddell has specifically denied these charges.[85]" That source doesn't demonstrate that he specifically denied that charge, as the "denial" was published after the charge.
 * Ah, the issue here is that Aidan Kelly originally made those claims in the early 1990s. Liddell then responded with his own counter-criticisms, and then Kelly republished his original comments in his 2007 book Inventing Witchcraft, which I have cited in the article here. I can look into including an original reference to his 1990s work here too, if that will help clarify things Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It couldn't hurt, if it's not too much trouble! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the article is a little over categorised. Are you sure it belongs in 'Esotericists', 'English folklore', 'History of Essex', 'Wicca', 'Witchcraft' and 'Witchcraft in folklore and mythology'?
 * My concern is that the category list might be a little sparse without them, however I can see your point about them not being essential. I've removed "History of Essex", as we already have "People in Essex History", however I'm a little less eager to remove the others at the moment. As always, I'm open to more discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think about this... You may be able to narrow it down/recategorise a little further. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of sources (and this is based on a Google Scholar search only): Josh Milburn (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could include more from Baker? It's a nice academic source and he's pretty unequivocal about the plausibility of Liddle's account. (In fact, given the academic consensus, I think you could be firmer in the article's lead about the possibility of the account's veracity.)
 * I've added a little more from Baker, although he doesn't actually devote that much space to Liddell and Pickingill in his chapter in question, which focuses largely on Gerald Gardner and early Wicca. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was after. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a nice note in this article (PDF link) about Howard's view of Liddle's account. This may be a nice addition to the article, given that it's from an article in a respected academic journal.
 * Agreed; I've incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you've read this article? I can't access it online, but I note that my university library has the hard copy, if you want me to dig it out and see if there is anything of interest. (I suspect there's nothing too original, but it may be nice to have another academic voice in the article).
 * That article looks specifically at Cornwall and the emergence of Wiccan(esque) "Traditional Witchcraft" groups in modern Cornwall, like the Ros an Bucca. As such I don't think that it will be of much use here, but I shall try and access a hard copy (as much out of personal interest than anything else). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)