User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry/Nhochfelder 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? Atietz2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I'm unsure; either way, there are no citations in the lead and I think some should be added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, except the first sentence is written to make it seem like "deliverance ministry" is an action...Ashley may want to just reword the first sentence to clear this up.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but they are outlined above the lead so this wasn't confusing.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, for example the "post-deliverance maintenance" section seemed thematically coherent with the rest of the page.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The main thing I noticed here is not that anything is missing or strictly doesn't belong, but I felt like the information I the "controversies" section could either be deleted or added to...I just wish it was more substantive.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the language is objective
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The article is well cited except for the "Formal work of ministries" section and the lead.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are up to date (much of it comes from McLeod's book which we read in class)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I didn't notice any obvious grammatical errors, and the logic of the article is organized well via the sub-headers.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, headings are clear.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'''Overall, I think Ashley did a great job of making the article more substantive, especially using McLeod's great and reliable book. I think some more citations could be added in some spots (unless that was the previous authors' work).'''