User:Celestepl/Charismatic Christianity/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? Celestepl
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Partially; Celeste made an "intro" section which clarifies the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a clear contents section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, for the most part
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nothing seems heavily biased. I did notice that the first sentence of the "Distinguishing Beliefs" section to seem somewhat argumentative (Charismatic Christianity is diverse, and it is not defined by acceptance of any particular doctrines, practices, or denominational structures. Rather, renewalists share a spirituality characterized by a worldview where miracles, signs and wonders, and other supernatural occurrences are expected to be present in the lives of believers. ). This may be too critical, but it seems like this sentence tries to make an original point, especially signified by the word "rather".
 * 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? I think for the most part; I think the "statistics" section could use more citations, however.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, I do think more sources could be added though
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? Yes, it is mostly clear...I think the sentence structure in the "Distinguishing Beliefs" section could be a little more concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would suggest moving the "Distinguishing Beliefs" section right after "History" and moving "statistics" towards the end...it seems to be the least relevant.

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? A great job is done on fleshing out/expanding on the history of charismatic christianity and its prevalence in the world (see the statistics section).
 * What are the strengths of the content added? See above response--the added content essentially adds more historical detail.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think more content can be added to the Neo-charismatic section--this seems to lack detail compared to the other sections. I wonder if maybe there are some important individual figures that can be emphasized in the article to ground the "beliefs" in more context.