Talk:George Pickingill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seattle (talk · contribs) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article soon. Seattle (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Watch DAB link
- I've made the corrections here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the copyright status of File:George Pickingill.jpg: namely, how can you assert life and 100 years of the author if you don't know who authored the photograph? It's plausible that the author died in the mid-20th century, which would still put this work in copyright. Further, the photo doesn't seem like it was first published in the US prior to 1923, which doesn't make it PD in the US. Its copyright status in the United Kingdom seems to fit point four, which makes it copyrighted until the end of 2039; when combined, the file should not be at the Commons.
- A very valid concern; thank you for pointing it out. To rectify this, I have set the image in question on to a process for deletion over at Commons. However, in the infobox of this article I have added a newly uploaded identical image with a rectified copyright tag (File:George Pickingill, Cunning Man.jpg). I hope that this deals with the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Georges Church.jpg appears to be a copyright violation of [1], which lists an upload date of August 20, 2012, with ours at February 10, 2013. Its uploader, Agw19666, could be the "Andrew Whittaker" listed at the site, but an official release through OTRS should be used if you want to include the photo. As a side, that user seems to have uploaded several other photos from the site, so if you could contact him through www.picturesofengland.com and confirm that the users are the same, that would be great for the encyclopedia.
- This is the point where I am having difficulty. I have been unable to find a way of contacting Andrew Whittaker. Maybe I should remove the image from this page in the meantime ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you can remove it, and that would be fine. Seattle (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stnicolaschurchcanewdon.jpg: checks out, though a transfer to the Commons and an information template there would be nice.

File:Aleister Crowley, wickedest man in the world.jpg: File copyright checks out, but the photo's title is not neutral (File:Aleister Crowley works fine).
- Crowley was famously labelled the "wickedest man in the world" by a tabloid in his own day and the name stuck, with many fans of Crowley also embracing it. Nonetheless, you make a fair point regarding neutrality. I'm not sure how to actually change the name of the file itself; nevertheless, surely the name of the image should not endanger this particular GAN ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've asked for a move. Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canewdon essex 1.jpg: Perfect.

most notably an old woman named Lillian Garner why is she, out of everyone else, "most notable"? "Most notable" seems like editorializing. Can you be specific with her contributions?
- Fair point. I don't think that Maple ever actually named his sources, although both Hutton and Howard have claimed that they met with her subsequently, and their work reveals that Garner was one of those whom Maple talked to. However, given that this doesn't really make her "most notable", I have decided to remove this entire sentence from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

major figure in the nineteenth-century esoteric scene. "major figure" is a WP:PEACOCK phrase; can you link "esoteric" to Wiktionary?
- Good point, although rather than linking it to Wiktionary I have linked it to the Wikipedia article on Western esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rereading the sentence, it seems fine. Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hutton, Ronald (1999) uses a 10-digit ISBN, while the others use a 13-digit ISBN. Be consistent; see WP:ISBN for a converter.
- Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will start the "Biography" review soon. Seattle (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life and family

The year of Pickingill's birth is however in question, as he would make differing claims regarding this in different censuses would make → made; I don't think "regarding this" is necessary here, it should be implied from context
- Agreed; I have made the suggested changes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link "parish"?
- Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essex, however by 1861 they had moved to Eastwood, Essex, where they were recorded in that year's census. I think a semi-colon would work best after "Essex" instead of the comma
- Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the quotebox, quotes within the quote should be single-quoted (') instead of double.
- I'm not sure if I agree on this one, because the double-quote marks are those that were present in the original source; thus, to replace them with single-quote marks would be to alter the original text, which is itself a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think single quotes would be appropriate, if my reading of MOS:QWQ is correct (which it might not be). What's your interpretation of MOS:QWQ? Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I'm still a little uneasy about changing the formatting of a quoted source, I agree with your assessment of QWQ and have made alterations to the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link "peck" and "schilling"?
- Agreed; links are now to peck and Shilling (British coin). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor was arrested and brought to trial in Rochdale on 24 August, in October pleading guilty this is awkwardly constructed; can you reword?
- I've gone with "Taylor was arrested and brought to trial in Rochdale on 24 August; in October, he pleaded guilty to the theft of the jacket, although not to those of the other items." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention if Sarah Ann Bateman had a listed profession in the Censuses, or what she was mentioned as?
- I have added the following to the article to deal with this ommission: "no profession was listed for Bateman" Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magical activities

Can you link "cunning man"?
- I have added a link to cunning folk. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ignored scholarly conventions in relating his information what does this mean? What are "scholarly conventions"?
- As Hutton (p. 296) puts it, "[Maple's] colleagues in the Folk-Lore Society rued his abandonment of scholarly standards". I believe that what they are referring to was his lack of peer review, the general non-academic tome of the book's prose, its absence of detail, etc. However, I am unsure how this could be incorporated into the article itself without it being OR on my behalf. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was also recorded as coercing local people to obtain him I'm not sure "him" is needed here
- I think it important to clarify that he was (allegedly) coercing them to obtain water for him, not for other uses; however, the wording here isn't great, so I've changed it to "to obtain water for him". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- which were his familiar spirits - would suggest ndashes here; I'm not sure "which were" is needed here
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he believed that this story had its origins clarify "he" here; "had its origins" → originated
- Both changes made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

who sought his advice in a dispute that they were having over wages. → who sought his advice over a wage dispute
- Good call. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

who were malevolent witches who second "who" to "and"
- Another good call. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maple also noted would prefer "wrote" here
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In April 1967 Ronald Hutton, later to become a noted historian, cut the clause; that phrase is WP:PEACOCK
- Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link "Gardnerian Wiccan"?
- Added link to Gardnerian Wicca. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the sensationalist potboiler Witness to Witchcraft (1970). "sensationalist potboiler" seems like OR without a citation; can you find a source that described it as such?
- Hutton (p. 296) refers to the tome as "sensationalist book", so I shall remove "potboiler" from the article's prose because as you point out, that could count as OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence, she highlighted that there was no evidence two uses of "evidence" too close together
- I've changed the prose to "Supporting this position, she highlighted that there was no evidence..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Can you link "infirmary"?
- Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link "shaft"?
- I've added a link to Horse harness because there is not article on harness shafts specifically. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

whilst his house fell into dilapidation before falling down. The same day? Can you reword this; "whilst" implies, to me, a relation to the day of his funeral.
- I've expanded this sentence slightly with a few extra words: "He was subsequently buried in the church's graveyard, whilst his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before falling down." Hopefully that clarifies matters, although let me know if you're not convinced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Maple would assert" → asserted Seattle (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Liddell's claims

he later began using the pseudonym of Lugh not sure "of" is needed here
- Fair point. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for the reason that it was deemed less dominated by the tradition for the reason that → because; can you tie this to Lugh more? I'm struggling to see the connection.
- I've changed the prose to "he claimed to have switched outlets because The Wiccan had been too dominated by Gardnerian perspectives". Hope that helps to clear things up a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His partner, Sylvia Tatham, had been one of those present when Alex Sanders "had been one of those present" → was present; I can't understand / see why Liddel's partner is relevant to this article.
- Admittedly, it is not directly relevant, but it is included in Hutton's book, so thus does have some contextual relevance to the wider subject. Further, many (possibly even most) of those reading this section will have an interest in Wicca and its history, and thus find this information to be a useful addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, the second a similar but separate tradition which Pickingill had greatly influenced in the nineteenth century, and third his experiences as an individual born into a witchcraft family, who had subsequently been initiated into both of these traditions and a separate "cunning lodge" prior to his emigration to New Zealand. Can you clarify if the first two are literal or abstract sources? Is there a name for the second source?
- I've rewritten this in a manner that I hope is a little clearer: "The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second was a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you clarify if these are literal sources (ie people) or just sources of inspiration for his own work? Can you change "alleged" to "stated"?Seattle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Liddell certainly claims that they are literal sources. I have altered the prose to the following: "Liddell explained this by stating that the information contained in his articles had been passed on to him by three separate sources, all of which had decided to use him as a mouthpiece for their own claims. The first were the members of a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second were the practitioners of a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's certainly clearer. Seattle (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He claimed that most of the information that he was publishing came from Elders Mr. and Mrs. Elder? Why the caps? Can you link somewhere if it's a proper noun?
- Ah, I understand the confusion. In contemporary Pagan discourse, "Elders" are older, wiser members of a group. I have placed the term in quotation marks in the article and added "or older members", so hopefully that solves the problem; if you don't think it does, let me know and I can try something else. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Seattle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thereby making it hard for anyone to trace their identities. The Elders? Why don't they want their identities traced?
- I don't know. Critics of Liddell would (and have) argued that it is because the Elders never existed, and Liddell is just making stuff up for attention. However, he would probably respond that these Elders instead value their anonymity and secrecy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Seattle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me here. Seattle (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lois Bourne.JPG: Needs a personality rights template at the Commons if she's still alive
- Added! Admittedly I'd never heard of such a template before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liddell's account

gypsy kako can you link "gypsy kako" somewhere?
- "Kako" is a Romani word meaning "uncle". I've added a wiktionary link, as there isn't a relevent Wikipedia article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mid-fifteenth century, – Use either the commas or the ndashes, not both
- Well spotted; corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the roup assuming you mean the group, not an auction?
- Corrected! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

further added that two of those covens, based in Hertfordshire and Norfolk, survived into his own time. can you clarify whose "his" is here?
- I've changed "into his own time" into "into the 1970s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

female-oriented form because he was aware that is "he was aware that" necessary here?
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liddell nevertheless asserted I don't see a contrast in that "nevertheless" could transition to;
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he later contrasted this with the claim that this was not certain. too wordy
- Changed to "however, he later stated that he was not certain of this" Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which was based in Hertfordshire we don't need "which was" here
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

, although stressed that this group was separate from Gardner's own Bricket Wood coven. I think this should be its own sentence; "Liddell stressed that this group ...
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link or explain "Third Rite"?
- Done, through the addition of both a link and a little further text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and that "No impartial watch caps on "No"
- The capital N was included here because it is a correct trascript from the original source, but I guess it's okay to convert it here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liddell was of the opinion that → believed that?
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan response

the prominent Wiccan Doreen Valiente "prominent" doesn't particularly add anything
- Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

had come to be more sceptical → became more sceptical
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academic response

that he believed that second "that" unnecessary
- Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murrell, James Tuckett, John Wrightson, or William Brewer. are these people notable enough to have articles sometime in the future?
- Given that Davies decided to cite them specifically, they probably are of some (small) significance, and thus would be worthy of articles in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the photo caption, covens have been heavily scrutinised and discredited have should be "has" because the claim is singular
- Well spotted! And changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to pass this article after the above comments are addressed. Seattle (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article, Seattle. I hope that you found it to be of some interest! All the best, and happy holidays, whatever you may be celebrating ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]