Jump to content

Talk:James Murrell/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like a great topic. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Having seventeen children with his wife, they later moved back to Essex" How about "He had seventeen children with his wife, and the family later moved back to..."? (I'm guessing that some/all of the kids went with them?)
  • I feel we need a link to to some kind of article on magic in the lead. I know you're using the term in a technical way, but when you write "On a number of occasions his magical activities gained" you come across as claiming that he genuinely was magical, which, of course, it is not the place of Wikipedia to claim. We also have an article on quackery which may be worth linking.
  • You should spell out Maple's name in full (preferably with some degree of description) on his first mention outside of the lead (I see now that you do it further down the article- it should be moved up)
  • The "documented cases" section feels like it opens with very little context
  • "The vicar himself died in March 1847" I'm not sure what to make of this- when was Murrell asked to intervene in the village? You do not specify.
    • I'm not sure that the date at which Murrell was asked to intervene is known. The date of the vicar's death is given so as to provide a rough timeframe in which the events took place, although if you think that it's a distraction then I can remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "belonging to the victim" Would "the girl" not be a bit more neutral?
  • "relieving officer"/"union-house"/"officer of the poor" are all terms that will be alien to many readers.

Stopping for now; back later. (As a little aside, the whole Burrell/Murrell/Mrs Mole account is great. Like a plot from Inside No. 9.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Another story related that Murrell's son Buck placed the cunning man's final witch-bottle in the fire, at which it exploded and destroyed a wall of his cottage." This doesn't read that well.
    • Changed to "Another story told among locals was that Murrell's son Buck had taken the cunning man's final witch-bottle. Placing the bottle in his household fire, it was there that the bottle exploded and destroyed a wall of his cottage." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Intrigued by the stories of the cunning man, he authored a fictitious account of Murrell's life known as Cunning Murrell, as well as a more objective account for The Strand magazine." How about "Intrigued by the stories of the cunning man, he authored Cunning Murrell, a fictitious account of Murrell's life, as well as a more objective account, the latter for The Strand magazine."
  • "burned by those who did not believe them to be of any importance" A bit rhetorical
    • I've thought through a few alternatives but I'm not sure if they are really any better. I want to make it clear that the papers were burned because they were not deemed to be important, rather than out of anti-witchcraft fear or anything like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also stated that her opinion that Murrell's power to control mechanical objects had remained within the family, who were "natural mechanics"." This doesn't quite work
  • There's no point linking to the UCL library for The Times links; the citations are fine without it.
  • The sources aren't bad, but I'm not particularly keen on the Hallman source or, especially, Wallworth. I'm inclined to go the same way I did with Pickingill and say that the source is acceptable at GAC for very uncontroversial information, but that it's not a suitable source for FAC purposes.
  • doi:10.1080/0015587X.1996.9715910, by Jacqueline Simpson, has a mention which might be useful. It seems that most of the hits are just quick summaries of the earlier research.
    • The only mention in that paper is the following: "James Murrell, a famous Essex cunning man (d. 1860), used to refer to himself as a "Master of Witches," but this, too, is confusing, as it could be misinterpreted as a claim to be their leader, not their destroyer (I am indebted to Alan Smith for this information)." If this information is true, then why does it not appear in the other, more in-depth sources, such as those of Maple? I'm concerned that this might reflect a confusion with Murrell's self-description as the "Devil's Master" and thus would be a little hesitant about adding this information into the article at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting topic. Images seem fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I've incorporated further information from the Morrison article and from Maple's later book (which I ultimately found perched atop one of my bookcases). I've also moved things around a bit; I was worried that folklore purely gleaned from Maple's investigations during the 1950s had been placed alongside data about Murrell that was actually recorded during his lifetime or in the decades after it. That of course would blur the lines between historical events and later folklore, which I've tried to avoid by moving this later folk lore to its own section further on in the article. Does that look okay to you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably best if I have a whole new read through of the article, which I'll find time for ASAP. Some quick interim suggestions: First, I'd include both notebook pages (Template:Multiple images would be nice for this- I think it looks very neat when done properly). Second, it'd be great if you could replace as many of the citations to Wallworth with citations to Morrison as possible, if you haven't already done this. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Josh. I think that (as with the Pickingill article), some reliance on Wallworth is inevitable, but I've added Morrison where possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second look-through

[edit]

Some quick initial comments (I've not finished reading through again yet...): Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This being the case, it would have been likely that Murrell had at least heard of the Pickingill family who lived in the small Canewdon community; one of the Pickingill's children, George Pickingill, would also grow up to be a cunning man." I think this is too speculative to be attributed to a questionable source. (Though you should add some links further down the article if you do remove this.)
  • "Inside, he had many drying herbs hung from the ceiling in his cottage" A little clumsy
    • I've changed this to "Within the cottage, Murrell had drying herbs hanging from his ceiling".
  • "and his devices were reported to include a crystal, a mirror, a bowl of water, a copper charm with which he would allegedly distinguish whether an individual was lying or not, and a "trick" telescope that supposedly enabled him "to see through brick walls"." Long and complex

Ok, some more:

  • "Another story given by Choppen was that Murrell's son Edward – or "Buck" as he was nicknamed – had taken the cunning man's final witch-bottle. Placing the bottle in his household fire, it was there that the bottle exploded and destroyed a wall of his cottage." Whose house? Father or son?
  • I confess I'm not fully clear on your separation between "folklore" and "documented cases". I'm not going to push it for GA purposes, but perhaps something to think on (or, if there's a clear line that I'm missing, please feel free to enlighten me!)
    • The division that I've tried to go for is between the reports from records that were actually contemporary to Murrell's life (i.e. from local newspapers and from the accounts given by those who knew him), and the stories that were circulating in the 1950s when they were discovered by Maple. For instance, there are no contemporary records claiming that Murrell could fly, and yet by the 1950s this story was being circulated in the area. I didn't want the prose to give the impression that Murrell's contemporaries actually believed that he could fly, because there is no evidence at all that they believed that, but certainly some people living a century after he died were passing around that story. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little odd that you mention Reverend King before Morrison; would Morrison not be prior to King?
    • I'm not entirely sure. It would seem that their researches were being carried out at roughly the same time, i.e. the 1890s. Unfortunately the lack of information on King doesn't make things particularly clear. Regardless, I think that it might work better if King is indeed mentioned after Morrison, so I shall move the paragraphs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a bit worried by "those who did not believe them to be of any importance"- it sounds like it should be followed by "in accordance with the prophecy". Do we not know anything more about who burned them? "someone who did not believe them to be of any importance" would be better, but I appreciate that it may not have been only a single person...

A fascinating topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Murrell/GA1&oldid=702261754"