Template:Did you know nominations/Malkin Tower

The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Malkin Tower

edit

Created/expanded by Malleus Fatuorum (talk), BigDom (talk), Trappedinburnley (talk). Nominated by BigDom (talk) at 12:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The hook is too much of a fudge for me - "perhaps the most-well known alleged..". Long enough, recent enough. Secretlondon (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How about: "... that on Good Friday, 6 April 1612, Malkin Tower was alleged to be the location of a witches' coven?" We have to use alleged because obviously there's no such thing as real witches. BigDom (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Wiccans would disagree! However this is about women falsely being accused of witchcraft, which I accept is different.
Actually it isn't; two of those accused and executed as witches were blokes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest "... that Malkin Tower was the venue for an alleged witches' coven that took place on Good Friday, 6 April 1612" as a less ambiguous hook. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Long enough, recent enough. Refs fine. I've fiddled with your alt hook. Will have to AGF on the offline sources. Secretlondon (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That alt hook isn't right, as the coven took place on 6 April, not the allegation. I don't agree with the "fudge" accusation, but I've made an alternate suggestion nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)