Talk:Charlene Richard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted within the next 24 hours. --1ST7 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

Well-written
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, there needs to be a word other than "cult" to use for the article. If this movement is considered a cult, then there needs to be some information about who considers it to be one.
Verifiable with no original research:
Broad in its coverage:
- The article is pretty short. Is there any more information that hasn't been covered?
Neutral:
- See "Words to Watch" comment above".
Stable:
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- No images in use.

I'll put the article on hold to give you time to address these issues. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cult: I understand your concern about "cult" and MoS is right when someone attempts to use the word in a pejorative sense, but here I'm using it as the technically correct term for the veneration of a saint, see Cult_(religious_practice)#In_Christianity and, indeed, I'm not trying to imply anything about her followers of that negative nature nor do they have those characteristics. The academic paper which I cite in footnote 2 uses the term in that way, not the pejorative way:

"In the past, especially before mid-twentieth century, a saint's cult (i.e., a large following of people who share a devotion to a person believed to have special powers of intercession) often formed slowly, spreading from person to person by word of mouth for more than a century. In the case of Charlene, not only has the cult formed quickly, but many people who knew Charlene as an ordinary child are still living." (Gaudet, Marcia (1994). "Folk Veneration Among the Cajuns". Southern Folklore 51 (2): 153–66)

Nonetheless, I've removed the uses of the term due to the common misunderstanding of it's meaning. Doing so has made the article somewhat more vague and less technically correct, but arguably more accessible.

Additional uncovered information and length: While more detail and analysis could be added to the article, it would just be that, detail, not expansion of the basic story about Richard, and virtually all of it would have to come from the Gaudet article. I've already drained as much from Gaudet as I can without causing the article to rely too much on one reliable source. There is one other semi-academic article (here), but it's largely a regurgitation of (and relies in part upon) Gaudet and it's also poorly written and of uncertain reliability and adds very little. I did not use it for that reason. The fact is that the article as it now stands is "broad in its coverage" in that it covers all the salient facts about Richard which make her notable or important.

Images: I've made a diligent search and can find no images which are not copyright-protected or which would — but I'm no expert on this — survive WP:NFC scrutiny. Worse, most are almost certainly copyright violations where they now exist. For example, I'd like to use this image or this image, but they're almost certainly copyright violations of the materials which are shown in the images. (There are some photos of her grave which might on first blush survive NFC scrutiny, but when carefully examined incidentally include pictures of living people or statuary which would violate paragraphs 1 and 10 of the nonacceptable use list. Even if they did not, it would seem odd to include a picture of her grave without first including a picture of her.)

One of your edits: I've reversed one of your edits from your reference to a "movement" back to a "popular belief". The single most significant thing about Richard is her status as a folk saint: a person's whose nature as a saint (a person who's soul has gone to Heaven rather than Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo) is popularly recognized but not officially by the Catholic Church. That recognition may or may not be supported or urged by some organization, but the important part is that the belief is held by ordinary folks. In this particular case it's Richard's Americanness, young age, and ordinariness (especially before she got sick) which makes her significant. In other words, it's not any organization or movement which makes her important, it's the widespread belief of ordinary people. That's what the academic paper and all the news stories focus upon. Indeed, the organizational/movement aspect of her popularity is it's least important part.

Let me know if there is more that I can address. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, an image isn't necessary for the article to pass as a GA. It looks good now, so I'm going to pass it. Congratulations, and thanks again for your work. --1ST7 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]