User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry/Faysa.sr 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ashley (atietz2020)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Deliverance ministry
 * I did the wrong version! So all my updated comments are in italics.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, looks good.
 * I think the lead is supposed to be a short blurb/section that comes before contents - much like a thesis section. In this version, it is under the heading "Deliverance ministry"
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, and key terms are bolded and linked as necessary.
 * Yes, key term is bolded and keywords are linked properly throughout.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, a table of contents in the lead section covers the article's major sections.
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead provides a clear definition of the term deliverance ministry which is then elaborated on throughout the article.
 * The lead - assuming it is under "Deliverance ministry" - the lead effectively introduces the concept of this article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, a clear and concise lead exists.
 * Conscise: assuming it is under "Deliverance ministry" the lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! I like that you open with sources of demonic possessions (why people need deliverance ministries) and then go into methods (how).
 * Yes, the content follows a solid outline - going from history and foundational knowledge, to sources of demons, to a clearly organized breakdown of how deliverance ministries are executed, and ending on a note of additional information and distinctions.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As of now, it seems like all of the sources are current enough.
 * All of the sources seem current still - the oldest being published in '97 and '98. Those are on the fence because they aren't foundational works but article reads organically so I don't see a problem with it.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there needs to be an open source image or something based on the wiki guidelines. In methods - "A Ouija board is a perfect example of this" reads as a bit opinionated.
 * If you have time, you might want to add outside research on the history of deliverance ministries.
 * I'm so glad you added a robust history section. That was my main suggestion the first time around, the content is much more comprehensive in this version. I think the way you wrote it also makes sense dividing the sub-headings into biblical presidents and post-biblical deliverance ministries.
 * Link any of the names you can find pages for: "For some Christians, deliverance ministries are activities carried out by specialist individuals like Bishop Larry Gaiters and Rev Vincent Bauhaus, or groups aimed at solving problems related to demons and spirits, especially possession of the body and soul, but not the spirit. Ministries like Ellel Ministries International, Don Dickerman Ministries and Neil T. Anderson explicitly teach that a Christian cannot have demons in their spirit because the Holy Spirit lives there"

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * For the most part yes, really good use of McCloud's book.
 * This is way more neutral than the original version, still great use of McCloud's book.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As long as you add a citation to the Controversy section, it all looks good.
 * I like that you got rid of the Controversy section overall - that was the piece that read as a bit opinionated especially because it once lacked citations and shared a pretty strong perspective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nope, I think it reads as neutral.
 * Nope, neutral standpoint overall, I see you have a little note saying citation needed but "Formal work of ministries" needs citations in both paragraphs.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not persuasive, simply informative.
 * Still just informative. Good work correcting the sections that were not as objective.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I see that you have plans to add citations to some of the sources, all of the sources you've added look really reliable.
 * Yes everything looks reliable, just make sure to be generous with citations - more is good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I'm sure more sources exist, I think you have to make the call at how comprehensive you want the article to be.
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. The sources are all published within the last 20 years.
 * Yes. ^
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links are working!
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Still yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None I found during my read.
 * Still looks good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Sections all make sense.
 * Way better organization this time around - sub-headings super effective and helpful.

Images and Media - N/A? - I'm sure you'll get to it. You have pictures now!
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. Maybe add one more image!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, can I get a date on the image caption?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, maybe add one more.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * More can be added, author needs to make the judgement call. I'm also not sure how much literature exists.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Yes, clear and helpful sequence/formatting.
 * Yes, way more clear/helpful now!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes. Keyword links in every paragraph and a see also section exists.
 * I mentioned above where to do some additional linking.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I really like that this gives the insight of American Possessions by Sean McCloud. I think it was a really cool way of incorporating our course material and knowledge into the public space of Wikipedia.
 * This is way better now! I'm glad you reached out and made sure I read the right version. Very interesting work and still super relevant to the class.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the biggest strengths include the contrast between the why (sources of demonic presences) and how (methods). Those are the most substantive sections and they clearly help site visitors understand the term.
 * I really think the history section rounds out the article now.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think a little beefing up in terms of sources and it'll be an extremely strong start to a once bare article.
 * I still think that a few more sources might add to the article but I'm sure once you add missing citations it should be fine.

Overall evaluation
This is really informative and comprehensive!

Faysa.sr (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Nice work!