User:Allieoster17/Louisiana Voodoo/CDDRDR Peer Review


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The article is swift, concise, well organized and on topic. Distractions were minimal excepting positive aspects of the article such as relevant documents, images and additional supporting materials.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Article is sufficiently neutral, though clearly demonstrates an external perspective (albeit objectively), particularly in the 'mental illness' segment where it references persons of the relevant cultures who do not admit to having them...segment could use a better cross reference to verify information (caution in absolutes without this is advised); overall article is neutral toned, well balanced in its display of information and generally well sourced.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Barring an absolute emic perspective, the objective viewpoint is the most neutral option possible, and has been fulfilled successfully. The representation of and supporting explanations are (to the best of my knowledge and verification efforts) accurate and positively balance multiple viewpoints within an overarching framework.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The listed claims do successfully represent the article and support its overall premise. The links are all viable with three exceptions, being: 'Remedy'; 'Native Americans'; and 'Voodoo doll': all though all three work they link to largely incomplete/unviable pages and might be replaced with more filled-out source material of a similar nature if remaining within Wikipedia. (Maybe poppets in place of 'voodoo doll' could help refine the backing link, as they have similar content material and, can be, to a slightly variant degree of situational and cultural orientation, interchangeable-though these orientations should be specified in the referencing sentence.)
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Some of the end references are a little mainstream (Reuters) and a few others, though they may be viable, are less than objective or otherwise unbalanced in presenting/account for biases. With respect to their integration into the article itself, these are accounted for, where utilized and appropriately positioned.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * Barring neo-practitioner versions of the base material, and historical roots of Voodoo in Louisiana, there isn't any obsolete issue with material. I might add a few other cross-references where multiple-culture exchanges take place in the historical section, though overall, the article is well done and very promising.