User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry/Charlie Phogg Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Atietz2020
 * User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated + new information has been added. The first introductory sentence is much improved, especially in terms of its succinctness. The lead could be updated further to describe (and include) the added info. After reading the article, it seems that the lead does not provide an introductory overview of the following subtopics: Methods, Sources of demonic presences, deliverance v exorcism or Prominent Figures. I think that if an entire sentence is given to the relatively subheading of "Controversy," the other headings need their space as well. However, I could also see the decision to remove that final sentence and make it a rule to leave out introductory info for the smaller sections. A last thought on this section-- the orig. article notes that Deliverance Ministry "refers to cleansing" while the new edits state that is "refers to groups." I'm not sure which is correct, but beyond the semantics, I find the construction "refers to" as overly confusing. This might be a stylistic comment, but I wonder if it would it make sense in this specific case to use a verb that would simply explain what "Deliverance ministry" is rather than what it describes. I think there's less grey area that way.

Content evaluation
The content is absolutely relevant to the topic and does a good job to flesh out many of the questions I had after reading the lead. The added "History section" is very helpful in providing context for the entire subject. For that reason, I feel that the History subsection might be better directly after the lead, although I understand if you feel that the Biblical Precedent belongs first because it is technically first in chronological order. However, even in that case, I do wonder if the Bib. Prec. would be better suited as a subtopic of history. I think this would help give the article a more academic (and dare I say, secular,) feel. In the "Formal work..." section, it would be helpful if the date of these ministries' work was provided. Are they current? I agree that the final sentence in the "Controversy" section needs to be struck entirely. If you can find a good source that provides commentary on the acceptance/disuse of the practice in varying Christian denominations, I think it would be helpful. However, this would probably turn this section into a subtopic that seeks to describe who has been involved with the practice (rather than a section that inherently stakes a claim using a critical stance. ) Coming back to this-- I wonder if explaining why exorcisms fell out of favor after the Middle Ages (pre-revival) might be interesting.

Tone and balance evaluation
Especially in the entirely new "History" section, the writing does a great job of maintaining neutrality. Instead of prescribing, the words are carefully chosen to reflect how those who participate in deliverance ministry see themselves. The Biblical precedent is probably given too much space in the article. This section is probably superfluous information and most likely can be found elsewhere:

He casts demons out of a man in a synagogue (Mark 1) and two men near tombs (Matthew 8). These events are connected in that in them, Jesus has a conversation with the demons and they acknowledge him as the son of God before he casts them out. He casts demons out of a little girl (Mark 7) and a young boy (Luke 9), both events that the Bible expressly connects to strengthening the faith of their parents.

It seems that this detail belongs in an article about exorcisms in the Christian Bible rather than here. Obviously understand, however if you disagree!

Furthermore, there are some sentences within this section probably would not to add to the reader's understanding of the topic. For example:

" Each of these events is told multiple times throughout the four gospels, and they are often explicitly connected to Jesus' power and authority, and are used to demonstrate it."

In general, the Biblical precedent section seems to contain an implicit argument. It seems to assert the legitimacy of current deliverance ministry through one interpretation of exorcisms in the Christian Bible. This is not a necessary conclusion, and it is even noted within the "controversy" section that not all people agree on this specific interpretation. I think it is mostly problematic because it is presented in a way that more or less purports to be factual/ single understanding of the material. I do think that this wikipedia article should contain this interpretation/argument. However, it should be bracketed in a way so that the article is citing the interpretation (precedent), rather than asserting it itself. I think adding a sentence or two about who holds these views (neo-Pentecostals? catholics from the middle ages?) would resolve this issue.

* It's a few hours later, and thinking this comment over again. While I'm not sure I still feel that it is argumentative/problematic, I think adding this bracketing info would strengthen the article *

Sources and References

Sources and references evaluation
This is one of the most impressive parts of the edit-- the article went from a jumbled mess of text and "citations needed" into a piece with flow and sources to boot. It does a good job of relying on mainly encyclopedic and academic sources. The links work perfectly, and are drawn from many current works.

Organization evaluation
The new content is concise, clear and easy to understand. I found almost no grammatical errors, but in all honesty, copy editing is not a strength of mine. The Methods section is especially well organized, and flows in a very logical manner. The article doesn't seem to mention any informal work, so I am confused about the "formal work of ministries" section. Is there enough information to enlarge this section into a "(work of) modern deliverance ministries" section? That could also include the subsequent "deliv. v exor." and "prom. figs." sections as subtopics.

Images and media evaluation
The article would certainly benefit from the addition of media, especially images. A quick google search turned up photos of Bob Larson conducting an exorcism, but I know it might be more difficult to find something that would be follow fair-use guidelines. Additionally, if there is any video of deliverance ministries preforming spiritual rituals that would certainly make the article more visually pleasing, and possibly more accessible to all readers.

Overall evaluation
The article feels much more solid and substantial in its effort to cover this topic. Overall, it feels much more trustworthy and academic in nature. The content added is very helpful in terms of its addition to contextual information. I think that it would be especially helpful if there was more commentary on the contemporary nature/modern work of deliverance ministries. I really appreciated reading your article-- please reach out if you have any questions about anything I wrote!