Talk:Survey of Scottish Witchcraft

Women in Red: 2019

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Need to take more care[edit]

Sockpuppetry

I think that Wikipedians in residence really ought to take more care than is exhibited in this new article. I've corrected the most egregious errors, including the claim that this an open source project, but it's still rather poorly written. For instance, what is "Firstly, because a map showing where the accused was made public after work at the University of Edinburgh by Ewan McAndrew, Wikimedian in Residence, and Emma Carroll, a geology and physical geography undergraduate" supposed to mean? Where the accused what? Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Horncastle: The article needs a little finessing is all, it is a new article by a new editor so we need to be mindful of couching any improvements to meet Wikipedia's style/requirements in an encouraging fashion. It can always be moved to draft if need be if notability etc. needs worked on. I've refrained from working on it as I'm mentioned in it so was hoping others with greater impartiality here could decide about what needs done about the article based on its merits. Stinglehammer (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that readers are concerned with the feelings of the editor, but perhaps we can begin by demonstrating how this article meets the general notability guidelines? In which reliable sources has it received significant coverage? Would you argue that your mention in the article is anything other than fancruft? Dr Horncastle (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Horncastle: It's obvious beyond any doubt that this article meets WP:N, given the amount of coverage. I would encourage you to adopt a more collegiate attitude to improving this article, if that is indeed what you have come here to do. Jwslubbock (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is there no evidence presented of this supposed amount of coverage? I would also draw your attention to the comment below by Pigsonthewing, as you seem to be suggesting that only some new editors are worthy of your consideration. Dr Horncastle (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a paper in a peer-reviewed book that discusses the survey in depth. That coupled with the more recent news coverage comfortably satisfies the notability guidelines. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a somewhat helpful start, of course, but where is this "more recent news coverage"? The paper you mention raises another point I meant to bring up, which is the quality of the database, which is not discussed in this article. I quote: "The lack of consistent documentation for witchcraft accusation and prosecution creates difficulties in using the database (and the underlying source materials) to draw conclusions about early modern witch-craft." I also note that my point about the fancruft trivia remains unaddressed. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the news coverage is referenced in the Wikipedia article. If you want more there's The Scotsman, Smithsonian, and The Guardian as a sample.

As for 'fancruft', could you elaborate on your point? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. "... an interactive map showing where the accused witches resided was made public after work at the University of Edinburgh by Ewan McAndrew, Wikimedian in Residence, and Emma Carroll, a geology and physical geography undergraduate." What work exactly? Dr Horncastle (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotsman article doesn't mention this database, and neither does the Smithsonian, which refers to an unrelated map that "features an array of previously unpublished data, much of which was extracted from historical records by undergraduate Emma Carroll and uploaded to Wikidata, a public database created by the team behind Wikipedia. The Guardian article isn't about this database either, merely mentions its existence briefly in passing. Dr Horncastle (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not clear on how that constitutes fancruft, but it could be my tired brain is missing the point. However, the map is an extension of the survey, it is simply another way of interacting with the data within. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. Ive made a few grammatical improvements, which i hope is helpful. With the recent media coverage this has received i would say it definitely meets the notability criteria. Happy to work with others to improve the article further if there is agreement it's needed. Cheers! Jason.nlw (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I doubt that readers are concerned with the feelings of the editor" I don't doubt that that is correct, but we as editors are required to be; see WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating insight! Dr Horncastle (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Media attention in October 2019 section merely trivia? What does the reconstruction of a face tell us about the database? Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contray to the protestations above, Dr Horncastle was not a new editor; and has now been blocked as a sock puppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]