Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:36, 28 September 2010 [1].

Grace Sherwood[edit]

Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started out on this simply wanting to make Grace Sherwood the Witch of Pungo and Pungo, Virginia my first double DYK nominations (5K+ expansions of stubs). Then Malleus was kind enough to help out and said that with a little work it could be a GA. Then others such as Ucucha, MastCell, and Littleoliveoil starting helping and several people started saying "Wake up R! Skip GA and go to FAC!" (a couple threads on my talk page relate to this). Though hesitant, I decided to do so, so here I am. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—no dabs and no dead links. Regarding "The governing bodies of Sentara Bayside Hospital overwhelmingly agreed to have Sherwood's statue in the hospital grounds,[6] Nash said "Being one of our first healers, what better place"?", I couldn't find anything about overwhelming agreement in the source, and I think it'd be better not to use that grammatically dubious quote. Ucucha 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I removed "overwhelming" and left "agreed" because since it's on the hospital property, they obviously agreed to it. I think the "overwhelming" part was in a ref I later moved to ext links. Removed the "better place" quote too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images all look good; no problems with criterion 3. Ucucha 15:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c and 1c (breadth of sourcing) look good! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ~~2c citation quality, 1c source quality~~ Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the reliance on low quality sources, some of which I would double the reliability of, such as press releases and web-pages from local history associations and local civic / community associations. Additionally the reliance on low quality reliable sources, such as newspaper articles concerns me. Using Under an Ill Tongue (given below) to double up sourcing ought to solve this, the thesis was successfully defended.
~~I'm concerned at the absence of journal articles, scholar turns up:~~
- Grace Sherwood, the Virginia Witch Edward W. James Page 96 of 96-101 The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 3, No. 2 (Oct., 1894), pp. 96-101
- “Under an Ill Tongue”: Witchcraft and Religion in Seventeenth-Century Virginia Lindsey M. Newman Thesis MA (History) Virginia Polythechnic Institute and State University April 3, 2009
~~USA Today is a newspaper, it takes italics.~~
Chewning, Alpheus J. (2006). Chapter author? Work author? Chapter in book edited or authored by another? Unclear. Normal you don't separately cite the chapter when contained in a monograph authored by the individual.

Fixed the USA Today issue, but bedtime for me so I'll have to work on the rest tomorrow sometime. Two questions: 1) Before I was told not to use master's thesis, is this okay now? 2) are the two refs you list available online? URLs? How can I read them? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed you the first source; the second is here apparently. Ucucha 02:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the field, the claims, the level of the degree, the success of the thesis, and if it is published elsewhere. You might also like Template:Cite_thesis. Under and Ill Tongue was successfully defended, conducted at a State University (ie: a reputable University), it was an MA Thesis, not an honours thesis, but yet not a PhD Thesis. There is no monograph published separately (which would be preferred). While a defended MA Thesis is less good than a scholarly press Monograph, it is superior in reliability to local community group websites. It has been subject to academic review in the form of markers / defence. Theses are very much a case by case. This one looks fit for purpose. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update everyone, I've already started reading those two sources and they have some new stuff and mostly amplify and validate what is already in the article. When I'm done reading (hopefully tonight) I'll start modifying the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you're saying about the Chewning ref, he wrote the whole book, which had a chapter called "Grace Sherwood: The "Witch of Pungo"", so I cut it (hope I read your comment right). Pls advise if this was the correct action. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the 4 Wmburg quarterlies, still working the the thesis ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to address all these. Pls re-review. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only issue for me really was this single sentence: "Sherwood, who had a longstanding reputation in the community for malefic behavior and ill will." And...? It seems to be missing something. Cheers, Aiken (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was rather an extra word, "who", causing the problem, which I've removed. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as all comments have been addressed. Ucucha 23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha. This is generally quite good, and has gotten better while here at FAC, but a few problems remain:[reply]

"Virginia judicial leaders were reluctant to upset the colony’s fragile social fabric by prosecuting unwarranted accusations of witchcraft. The most significant threat to the community was conviction, leading to further accusations and hysteria,"—this seems to repeat the information of the rest of the paragraph; perhaps just delete it.

I can't help but feel that you've gone overboard with details in the "Legacy" section. Is it really relevant to an encyclopedic article at what time of the day that statue was erected (among other things)?

~~How can there be an accessdate for the "Ding dong, the stigma's gone" article if there is no URL?~~

Ucucha 21:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- cut and ce'd.
- I put the hour in as it was the same hour of day as the ducking, which to me at least was interesting. Perhaps we should mention this; if not, cut it. What else is overboard? What do others think?
- Fixed, obvious goof, pasting error or whatever. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Grace_Sherwood_FAC_question. Based on that I'm moving the Girl Scout part to external links. Not sure what else to do. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've been watching this article periodically throughout its development, and encouraged Rlevse to consider bringing it to FAC a few weeks ago, as I felt it was close to FA level then. The subsequent improvements, including some fine copy-editing by Malleus, have brought this article to FA level now - and it is still an interesting read. Well done. Risker (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I personally have an issue with the overabundance of refs, chaining three to five refs together with high frequency, but that can hardly be considered a fault. This certainly is a high quality article and deserving of Featured status. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From Final trial: "The case went back and forth between Willamsburg and Princess Anne County for the some months." I don't think "the" should be there. That's the only thing I saw worth noting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Ucucha 00:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.