User:Charlie Phogg/Baal Shem/Celestepl 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?
 * Charlie Phogg (Zev York)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Charlie Phogg/Baal Shem

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead is significantly longer and more detailed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is a clear topic sentence but it references Kabbalah without explaining it. It is linked but could be briefly explained in the intro sentence for clarity and background.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Roughly, yes. It doesn't distinctly reference them but provides a comprehensive overview.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is one sentence in the second paragraph of the lead that doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere; it references that there were similar figures before the beginning of Talmudic Judaism, but that isn't elaborated on in the the History section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it's just about right!

Lead evaluation
It's easy to see that the Lead has been significantly improved by Zev's contribution. It gives a general overview of the topic and roughly maps out the scope of the whole article. I think a few pieces of basic information could be explained in greater detail - specifically the intro sentence lacks an explanation of Kabbalah that an uninformed reader like myself might benefit from! I think the lead does a really good job of providing an effective summary.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All content is relevant, and stays focused specifically on the article subject. I don't notice any sources before 2014 so likely the facts are up to date, and as this is a historical/cultural subject I doubt anything would have changed. I think the History Overview section would benefit from being filled out a little more - this topic is deeply historical, and the origin is mentioned briefly but not much of the development is elaborated upon. It would also be useful to understand when the practice ended; I gathered from the rest of the article and the final section Contemporary Legacies that there is not work done by Baal Shem in the modern day, so a discussion of how/why that faded out could be useful! That discussion is present in the introduction to Hasidic Judaism, but not made explicitly clear.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
All content seems neutral in tone and there is not argument presented, only facts. However, there is one very long quote drawn from what looks like a blog in the Amulets and Practical Kabbalah section. It explains why amulets should not be used in the modern day. I think if this quote is kept, it should be made explicitly clear that this is an argument being made by a popular modern-day practitioner/ expert on Jewish mysticism, since the the quote itself contains personal interpretations of Jewish teachings.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
My peer added three new sources since the original article. Most look like trustworthy journal articles or published books, and seem relatively recent. However, the article itself doesn't contain very frequent citation, and there are no citations at all in the Foundations of Hasidism section. I think it would be useful to have more frequent citation so that sources can be checked. All links appear functional.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The writing is grammatically correct and clear. It is certainly easier to read if you are used to reading at a high level, because there are some bigger words and complex sentence structures. I think the language could be simplified to accommodate readers of all levels. The organization is clear, and seems to progress from history to practice to contemporary uses in a reasonable way.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A - peer did not add images or media. Existing images/media are captioned clearly and relevant.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A - previously existing article

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
This is certainly an improvement and considerable expansion. Way to go, Zev! I can tell you put good work into this. A recommendation I have is to replace the old section title of "Hasidic Replacement of the Baal Shem". You changed the title to Foundation of Hasidism, but I think the original title makes the historical progression more clear, and responds to some of my confusion earlier in this peer review. I think one of the best changes was the expansion of the Lead, which is much more useful and comprehensive now, and would offer a reader a usable knowledge base of the topic. My suggestions moving forward are to adjust that heading title, simplify some of the language and perhaps expand a little on the Historical Overview if possible. I also suggest adding more consistent citations throughout the article - a few were scattered through but not consistently referenced, and some sections lacked them entirely.

Great work overall!