Template:Did you know nominations/Kirkcudbright Tolbooth
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kirkcudbright Tolbooth
- ... that in 1805, Jean Maxwell was sentenced to be imprisoned for a year at Kirkcudbright Tolbooth for pretending to be a witch? Source: [1] Quote: Jean Maxwell, tried in Kirkcudbright in 1805 for 'pretending to exercise witchcraft, sorcery, inchantment, conjuration, &c.'. She was found guilty and sentenced to one year's imprisonment in Kirkcudbright Tolbooth."
- ALT1:... that in 1805, Jean Maxwell was sentenced to be imprisoned for a year at Kirkcudbright Tolbooth for pretending to be a witch? Identical, without the italics for 'pretending' if they are deemed not to be MOS-friendly
Created by Girth Summit (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC).
- Comment (not a full review). I suspect that this hook may be somewhat misleading, as it uses a word "pretending" whose meaning has shifted. In current usage it often means something like "play-acting": a child in a toy kitchen is pretending to cook. There is no intent to deceive in this action. The source for the hook states that the penalties were for the "pretence" of witchcraft, a word that has not shifted as much: it means claiming to be a witch, an act defined as automatically fraudulent because of the nonexistence of witchcraft. If the intent of the hook is to trick readers into clicking on the article to find out what pretending really means, then that would be ok, but then the article should include a better explanation of this distinction (although maybe that would be too far off-topic for an article about a building). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is perhaps fair comment David Eppstein. I'll see whether I can get a source that will allow me to add a sentence or two to the article discussing what is meant by 'pretence' in this context. Would you like me to ping you when I've addressed this, or to leave it for another reviewer? GirthSummit (blether) 09:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein Apologies for the double ping - I've expanded on the text in the article somewhat, are you happier that this hook would work now in the manner of your second possible meaning - getting readers to come and find out how someone could be prosecuted for pretending? GirthSummit (blether) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, better. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks David Eppstein. Could I twist your arm into doing a full review? I'm planning to nom for GA once the DYK is through, so any thoughts you might have at this stage would be gratefully received. GirthSummit (blether) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
New enough (promoted to mainspace April 1), easily long enough, and adequately sourced. Earwig found copying only of proper nouns and of phrases too short to be copyvios. (Example: "house ... the clock and bell, but in 1642 the council"; this is more than I would prefer to copy, but I think within rules.) QPQ done. Sourcing checks out. I prefer ALT1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
