Wikipedia:Peer review/Our Lady of Guadalupe/archive1

Our Lady of Guadalupe

I'm curious how this article strikes "laypeople" in general, and specifically I'm curious about:

a) how the telling of the "traditional account" works for people -- should it be more succinct? Contain fewer quotes? More quotes?

b) how comprehensible is the section on documentation for a person unfamiliar with the historical controversies?

c) an anonymous critic wrote on the talk page that it "gives the appearance of telling both sides of the story without really delivering on either." Does it feel vapid? Unfair and unbalanced? There's a fair amount of controversy in this material.

d) would more description of popular devotion -- the stuff that living people do today in veneration of Guadalupe -- be relevant? interesting?

Any feedback is appreciated: the Virgin's feast day is coming up in about two weeks and I'd like to get the entry in top shape... Thanks Katsam 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Honoring the Virgin

I haven't read the article in question, and this is not a "feedback," only a comment on the unpleasant aspects of the Virgin's feast, based on my personal experiences in a Mexican village. Part of the ritual is to wake up the population at dawn with screaming rockets, launched at ten- or fifteen-minute intervals into the black sky. People can say goodbye to restful nights for a week or two (I'd say, ten days is a sure bet). With all respect, it's amazing how deep-seated religious beliefs can turn the normally calm inhabitants of a village into a bunch of nervous wrecks, for lack of sleep. I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of being honored by practices that might endanger the mental equilibrium of the faithful.(User:Marta Palos 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)December 3, 06)

Ha ha! Too bad you're not a quotable source, I've been looking for some examples of actual devotion. Screaming rockets, izzit? Katsam 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Never heard them? If you crave insomnia, go down to the nearest Mexican village at this time of the year. (User: Marta Palos)

I wish! By the way, it seems like you're new -- welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to sign your name just write four tildes (~~~~. And in case you haven't found it, there's a discussion page under your name (click the red link with your name then click discussion) where someone else has already greeted you and tried to tell you a little about the wiki-ropes. Bang! Zoom!Katsam 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Katsam, I'm very new. Thanks for the advice--I'll check out the discussion page. By the way, I had no intention to step on anyone's religious toes; I merely wanted to point out the sometimes not too rosy aspects of religious rituals. Amigos? (User:Marta Palos 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)) 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)) Dec. 6. 06, 2:44 (MST)

Claro que si! I can't imagine who could be offended by the mere description of religious rituals involving screaming rockets. Speaking of rituals, I was in Rome when the AS Roma won the "scudetto" (national championships) for the first time in 18 years. Talk about losing sleep! Some people really know how to have fun... Katsam 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't the screaming rockets I was worried about, but my remark about the somewhat crazy rituals in general I don't think the Virgin Mary would approve of. (Maybe she'd even have a good laugh, watching them.) Although I still stick to my view, I'm getting into deep waters here, so I'd better quit the subject. Que te vaya bién! (By the way, I'm of Hungarian origin.) (Marta Palos 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

MLilburne

A few presentational points to start with:

• The bullet-pointed list in the lead needs to be converted to prose.

• The pictures are excellent, but are way too big by Wikipedia standards.

• The "traditional account" section should start by explaining what the Nican mopohua is. All you really need to say is "The Nican mopohua, a 36-page tract written in 1649 by Bachelor Luis Laso de la Vega, is considered the "primordial account" of the apparation. It was written in the indiginous Nahuatl language, and describes the 1531 meeting..."

• Although Harvard referencing is used in the article, there are a couple of external hyperlinks. One consistent method of citation should be used.

Hope this is helpful. I'll try to come back later and address your substantive questions. MLilburne 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I already put a couple of your suggestions into action.

(I love gigantic pictures, but you're right that they're stylistically unencyclopedic -- and I put in a little explanation of the Nican mopohua.)

Thanks for the citation comment, I knew it in my heart but hadn't yet accepted it...I guess I'm off to change all those citations into footnotes (aargh). Thanks again, Katsam 14:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy adding a few "citation needed" tags to the article. You shouldn't view these as criticisms of your work, they're just a useful way of indicating where people might expect to see citations. It would probably make GA status without them, but certainly not FA status. Now, on with the substantive comments...

• You're right to be a little concerned about the "traditional accounts" section. I was able to follow it, with no prior information on the topic, but I do think it's a bit too wordy and contains too many direct quotations that could easily be summarized. I also think that the tone is a bit unencyclopedic, as it reads more like a devotional account than a neutral summary of fact. Part of that impression is caused by the use of "Lady" and "Our Lady". It doesn't seem appropriate in an article that's supposed to be written from a neutral (ie not specifically Catholic) POV.

• The "symbol of Mexico" section looks excellent to me. You seem to have solid reasons for using the quotations that you are using, but be aware that some people might find it a bit quote-heavy. You might also want to consider setting off the longest ones using block quotes.

• In the "historical documentation" section, the use of "one... two... three... four..." makes the phrasing a bit awkward. If you deal with each source in at least one separate sentence, you'll be better able to inform the reader a little more about them.

• I question the use of the term "oral histories," as it seems anachronistic. When I first read the article it took me a little while to figure out that it wasn't modern oral histories that were being referred to.

• More information about the Codex Escalada and the oral histories would be welcome in the "Problems with documentation" section. The reader is led to believe that they may solve some of the problems with the 117 year gap, yet is not told how or why.

• Might be good to remind us who Zumarraga is at this point. Also, the use of "explicit" begs the question.... are there any implicit mentions of the Virgin in his writings?

• "some historians..." Which historians?

• I found the section on historical documentation easily comprehensible, but I am a professional historian, so I might not be the best person to ask...

Hope these are helpful comments. I'm going to have to take a break now, but will come back to the rest of it. I'm being hard on the article, but this is because I feel that it has a lot of promise. With more citations, a bit of prose improvement and some expansion, it could definitely be worth submitting as a FAC. MLilburne 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Those are great criticisms, really useful. I made a Codex Escalada entry, which I'll summarize in the bigger article. And I'm going to edit the "traditional account" and "symbol of Mexico" parts as per your suggestions.

I believe the "explicit" Zumarraga comment is referring to the fact that Z. mentioned a Guadalupe, but didn't mention the apparition story. Stafford Poole -- and I believe DA Brading as well -- think that the mentions of Guadalupe could refer to Guadalupe of Extremadura or some copy of her image. It's hard to know how much detail to include.

The other thing that I'm unsure about is what to do with uncited sections made by I-have-no-idea-who-a-million-years-ago. I hate to see those "citation needed" tags, and would prefer to take stuff out and put it on the discussion page rather than have the page riddled with questionmarks -- on the other hand I don't want to be rude to the previous editors.

Once again, thanks very much for your criticism -- it's really helpful! I'm a college student and I wish I got such lucid comments from my professors... Katsam 07:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If it were me, I would certainly refer to the fact that Zumarraga mentioned a Guadalupe. You wouldn't necessarily need any more detail than you've used here, but it seems to me to be interesting and relevant. The article is still quite short by FA standards, so I wouldn't worry about putting too much in as long as it's cogent.

As for what to do with the citation needed tags, it really depends on what your plans are for the article. If it is just going to remain a regular Wikipedia article, then it can continue with uncited statements. However, if your aim is GA or FA status, then you'll have to either remove them or find the source. If, after a bit of searching around, you really can't find a source, then I don't think there's anything wrong with taking the statement out and putting it on the talk page, with a pleasant note about why you did so. In getting an article to FA status, you usually have to risk stepping on a few toes of previous editors. But it's usually worth it, and it isn't rude... that's the way Wiki improves.

I took a look at your last few edits, and I'm really impressed. The article is improving by leaps and bounds. I'll come back later today to offer comments on the rest of it. In the mean time, keep up the good work. MLilburne 09:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It turns out I dreamed up Zumarraga's mentions of Guadalupe. What I was misremembering was: there was definitely a shrine to a Virgin of Guadalupe at Tepeyac hill, even way back -- it was mentioned by eight bazillion different historians, priests and letter-writers. However, there's quite a bit of textual evidence to indicate that the Guadalupe at Tepeyac could have originally been something else -- like maybe a copy of the Guadalupe of Extremadura. So: mentions of "Guadalupe," completely backed by the evidence -- 16th-century mentions of the apparition? Not so much. (Maybe I should mention this in the article.)

Is there a "dealing with controversy" wikiprinciple? I've been editing with the idea that the miraculous investigations -- like finding figures in eyeballs -- are interesting (and thus notable) and that I should keep an even, neutral tone vis-a-vis the historicity of the apparition account. But I think the bulk of the evidence is on the antiapparitionist side. It's a little hard to parse -- L'Osservatore Romano seems to make a good case for the documents but then my best history book, by Stafford Poole, seems to utterly demolish any apparitionist case. I should go read some "religious figure" pages -- maybe I should go find Shroud of Turin!

You've been so encouraging I've been thinking about trying for FAC -- I really like the idea of the article being on the front page for Guadalupe's feast day (December 12). But I don't think it would be considered "stable" when I've rewritten half of it in the last couple days, and it doesn't seem long enough either, and there's still so much more that could be fixed/added --. Maybe I won't...

Thanks for your help, your criticism has been very motivating. Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't edited any really controversial articles, so I may not be the best person to advise. I think the most relevant principle is WP:NPOV. You have to discuss all of the major theories, of course; the trick is deciding what weight to give to each of them. You do that, I suppose, by asking which is the mainstream, majority viewpoint, and dealing with the minority viewpoints fairly, but making them less prominent.

Trying for FAC is certainly a worthwhile goal. I doubt that you would manage it by 12 December, though. The review process takes a minimum of five days, and usually more like one or two weeks. Plus it doesn't do to count on getting through the first time, as there are some pretty tough customers there. It's worth getting to know the page first, and being able to anticipate the sort of objections that are made. MLilburne 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One more round of comments:

• "Spiritual mestizaje". The meaning of this heading isn't clear to someone without any background in the area. However, the section is really excellent.

• I like the graffiti picture, but you might want to make the caption a little more specific as to what is depicted.

• "Other viewers interpret different aspects of the image as coded messages..." Might want to specify who these viewers are.

• "The icon has inspired great controversy." I could be wrong... have you discussed the icon before? If not, you might want to introduce it a little more. Otherwise the reader is likely to think "what icon?"

• "Several people have studied the tilma and found it to have miraculous properties." Can you specify what is meant by "tilma" in this context? This paragraph strikes me as a bit sketchy, somehow. A bit more detail might help.

• "Therefore, the issue remains open until a more scholarly work is published." This sounds a bit POV to me.

• The format used for dates in the "Catholic devotion" section is inconsistent. All of them should be month, then day.

• " Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe today is widespread among Catholics in every part of the globe." This seems a bit too, I don't know... general.

• More on current devotional practice would certainly be relevant and interesting, if reliable sources are available. MLilburne 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I addressed all of the concerns you had here except for the current devotional practice stuff: I'm working on coming up with some stuff about that (together with user:Rockero). Somebody put a cool link to mini-shrines around East L.A., and I'd like to address shrines and pilgrimages + etc.

I'm going to come back and give this article another round of renovations this weekend, but in the meantime I just wanted to say THANK YOU again for your criticisms. It has really been fun editing with you. Katsam 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Automated peer review

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to fix that stuff now -- cool program -- Katsam 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quarma

I printed out this article to copyedit today. I only got through the first two sections so far, but tell me what you think of these suggestions:

Introduction

1. The article Villa Guadalupe claims that it was the site of the apparition, yet it is mentioned nowhere in this article.

The site of the apparition is supposed to be the same place where the Basilica is today. I never heard of Villa Guadalupe -- the Basilica is also in Gustavo Madera in D.F. so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll look into it.

1. "Marian apparition and a 16th century Roman Catholic icon" makes the two things sound less related than they are. Perhaps "16th century Marian apparition which has (since) become a Roman Catholic icon"

I think we might be misunderstanding eachother vis-a-vis "icon." The meaning isn't "icon" in the sense of "John Wayne was an icon of American manhood" but in the religious sense, like Eastern Orthodox icons. So Guadalupe is/was both an alleged apparition of the Virgin Mary and is a...painting. Except that "icon" is slightly more neutral than "painting" because Catholics believe the image was imparted to the tilma in some divine method.

1. "Guadalupe" should be introduced as an alternate name in the first sentence. Right now, it's used throughout the introduction and History section before finally being explained in Interpretations of the media.

You think the first sentence should read "Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Spanish: Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe) or Guadalupe is a Marian apparition and a 16th century Roman Catholic icon."  ?

1. Is the Paz quote the best way to express the icon's importance as a Mexican religious image? I have no problem with it being elsewhere in the article (perhaps it could be moved somewhere in the Mestizo culture and Mexican identity section), but it seems kind of tongue-in-cheek and perhaps not the best thing to stick in the summary.

I like the Paz quote and think it expresses well the importance that Guadalupe has in Mexico to both religious and non-religious people (they say in Mexico "hasta los ateos son Guadalupanos" or "even the atheists venerate Guadalupe"). But I'll put it up for discussion on the discussion page. There's another, perhaps less sardonic quote attributed to Carlos Fuentes where he says "It doesn't matter whether or not you're Christian, if you don't venerate the Virgin of Guadalupe you're not a Mexican." If the other editors on the discussion page agree maybe we could substitute in that quote...

1. Perhaps add more information to the caption of the lead image, even if this is basically the same as the image summary ("16th century painting of unknown provenance"). If this particular depiction is especially popular, you could mention it.

That particular image IS the Virgin of Guadalupe (as allegedly discovered on the tilma of Juan Diego in 1531)...that's the 16th century Roman Catholic icon described in the lead paragraph. Would it make it clearer if the lead paragraph said something like "Roman Catholic icon (pictured on the right)"?

These are minor concerns; I actually don't know if they would be correct changes or not.

1. "Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Virgin of Guadalupe" -> "Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Virgin of Guadalupe," ?
2. "multifaceted:" -> "multifaceted;" ?
3. "Finally" -> "In addition/additionally" (if only because the word "finally" makes me think of the end of a closed list)

History

1. Add a date of origin on the etching pic (if you have one)

I don't, but I'll poke around for one.

1. Why is the second written account summarized here? Is it simply more in-depth? Is it a more generally-accepted story than the other accounts? (The reason should be mentioned)

There's a reason but it's a semi-complicated reason. The problem with the apparition story is that the first published accounts of it came out about a century after 1531. The first was published in Spanish and the second was published in Nahuatl, and the Nahuatl version is preferred by everybody: by apparitionists (believers) because they claim it was actually written much earlier "by the Indian Antonio Valeriano", and nonapparitionists because it is supposed to be more beautiful (as a piece of literature). Would it make sense if I mentioned that directly after the "traditional account"?

1. Is this truly all that can be written about the traditional account? Would it be appropriate to add background information about Catholicism in 16th century Mexico?

There used to be a much more extensive description of the traditional account[[1]], which I took down because in this same peer review user:MLilburne said it read like a devotional account. I could expand it to contain more details: would you be more interested in further details about the apparition account or further details of the historical context in which the apparition was said to happen?

1. Are there any significant differences or contradictions between accounts?

Not really. Those who have researched the published accounts think the second was modeled off the first: the main differences are in language and in literary style. There's a LOT of controversy about "historical evidence" however (as contrasted with published apparition accounts).

1. Documentation needs more content, and probably a restructuring. Perhaps organize the different documents chronologically into subsections using summary style, and if you can, beef up the information on evidence for and against their historicity/authenticity.

I've been thinking about this. There is a huge -- massive! voluminous! quantity of information regarding documentation of both the apparition and the shrine. I could write 80 gigabytes easy on the documentation alone. So I was thinking it might be a good time to start a daughter article. I don't want "documentation" to have too large a place in the article because I don't think it's what concerns the vast majority of people when they think about the Virgin of Guadalupe -- I think the vast majority of people are interested in Guadalupe because they have a religious, historical, or cultural link with the image/story, and that the "documentation" part is mostly interesting to priests, historians, and a few fixated persons such as myself. I coudl be wrong about this however.

Quarma 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Quarma! I can't do any substantitive editing at this moment but later this weekend I hope to tuck into the article and will take your suggestions into account. Take care -- Katsam 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)