Talk:Allison Balfour/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have no knowledge about this subject. I know a bit about so-called occult practices because I lived in Thailand for many years, but that's it. Anyway, the article is more historical in nature than occult, so that should not be a problem. I felt that the article deals with quite serious topics, and it is good that these things have been recorded. The article is nearly at GA.

Thank you for taking on the review, Farang Rak Tham. Please see initial responses below. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Overview

1. Prose:

• According to this Earwig scan, no violations of copyright have been done.
• The article reads quite well and is interesting to follow. I will go into details later.

2. MOS: I have seen no violations of this.

3. References layout: There are no dead links. Sources can be readily identified.

4. Reliable sources: There are some sources used which could be regarded as less reliable. We should not use content of Linton's Witch Stories in Wikipedia's voice without some form of inline attribution. If possible, find a more reliable source. The same holds for the Penny Magazine article. Minor details, since both only support some minor content, but I can't ignore it.

The Linton ref is used twice, both as you say, for very minor details; one instance is in the Notes section where it is attributed to her. This was not one of her novels so why do you feel it (and Penny Magazine) are not sufficiently reliable?

Later note: I have replaced the Penny Magazine ref with Willumsen and used Chambers in place of one of the Linton uses; I have, however, left the note about Linton using a slightly different date. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: I wonder whether the case of Balfour's torture has led to any discussion in the literature, about its cruelty and how it reflects on that time period.

Not in any of the literature I have available and I do have access to, or copies of, the majority of academic work on Scottish witches.

In this article, it says Balfour's case is the most cited case of Scotland's witch hunt cases.

Yes, that Goodare quote is given in the article; almost all of the work on Scottish witches, however, is based on the same, very often incomplete, records and, despite being cited frequently, there is seldom any new information on the specific cases or mentions are in a very general form.

Yes, I understand that information is scarce on this topic. But what I meant with the last sentence was that the observation (that Balfour's case is the most cited case of Scotland's witch hunt cases) is worthy of including in the lead. It will highlight the importance of the subject matter. Right now it is in another section.

7. Focus: What is the purpose of the last paragraph about Colville's murder?

As Colville played an integral part in Allison's interrogation, torture and execution, I feel his own murder, possibly by someone accused of scheming with Allison, is a relevant part of the Aftermath section.

Alright.

8. Neutral: Article is neutral.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Can you find any more pictures on anything related? One picture is not much.

Illustrations for the series of articles we've worked on so far in this topic area are difficult hence our falling back on general views of the area. I will look again but, to be honest, I have already searched extensively. Recently some inappropriate images were added - for instance the thumbscrews were from the 17th century and there is no indication these were of the type used on Allison's daughter as thumbikens come from a much later period.

Well, you are certainly correct to delete that. But how about a picture of a related subject, such as the St Magnus Cathedral, John or Patrick Stewart?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no images available of John or Patrick Stewart. As she was not held in St Magnus Cathedral it would not be appropriate to include an image of it (it is only mentioned for clarity as that's where most of the witches were held). No images are available of Kirkwall Castle. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. I will wait for your response first.

Lead

• capital offence punishable by death Capital offences are always punishable by death, redundant.

  Fair enough, rewritten. Eric Corbett 16:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Background

• He had found Thomas Paplay, John's servant, with poison... Please expand a little.

  I have re-checked the sources and there is no further information available about this. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• The statement from Goodare should be in the lead, as I suggested above.

  Rather than include the direct quote in the lead, Eric has tweaked the wording to reflect it in the opening sentence of the lead, which I feel is a good solution. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It must have escaped my attention, sorry.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• The first of several alleged consultations... From reading the text I understand that it is accepted as a fact that the Stewart brothers asked Balfour for help, but how she responded is alleged and not clear from reliable sources. Correct? If so, maybe you should highlight a bit more that this part is shrouded, since it pertains to her innocence.

  I've tweaked it a little. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Balfour was held in Kirkwall Castle[2] although most witch trials were held in St Magnus Cathedral,[21] and prisoners may also have been held captive there. Lengthy and a bit confusing. Please split off.

• Rewritten. Eric Corbett 17:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Should minister really be wikilinked?

  It usually is, yes. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Torture

No comments.

Execution and aftermath

• ... actually murdered the minister in July 1596 by "maist schamefullie, crewallie and unmercifullie slew him" ... Does not run very well. Please integrate the quote.

  Done. Eric Corbett 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• ... one of Stewart's employees ...: please specify which Stewart.

  Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, but to tweak that further you might want to choose either Pacock or Peacock. It will read more smoothly, and the alternative spelling may not be required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am uncertain why there is a link to an external page about Peter Anderson.

  Because if there is no article for someone, proof of their credentials should be supplied - the same has been done for Goodare and Towrie. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

::: It does not violate anything, but I find it unusual, and have not seen it anywhere else. In Buddhist Studies, for example, about half of the scientific articles that are mainstream and cited elsewhere are by scholars not notable.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Footer

• It is located at the top of a street now... Please specify year: as of...

  I'm not sure I fully understand your query. An "as of" template is already in use; there don't appear to be specific details as to when it was named that - or if it was indeed possibly always known as Clay Loan. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Very well, then--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

Just a few more details.15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, perhaps you could have another look now once you get a chance? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Phil, there are some tips left, but nothing that would stop passing the article. Congratulations. I would appreciate it if you sent me the link once you have submitted the DYK nomination, if you do not mind.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have listed her name under "Religious Figures". I hope this is correct.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.