User:Charlie Phogg/Baal Shem/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? Zev (Charlie Phogg)
 * 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 clear and reflects the content of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The article's lead is fairly concise and does describe the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I think the lead does a sufficient job reflecting the rest of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the rest of the article is more specific and the Lead is more introductory.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise.
 * Concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it adds a lot to the existing piece.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all of the sources seem very recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the content is pretty comprehensive.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the work is anchored in scholars and historical figures as the major thinkers.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As long as in-text citations are added to the foundations sections.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I'm not too knowledgeable on this topic but as far as I can tell, no it seems pretty robust.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, overall neutral writing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, very current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The ones I checked are working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I think the subsections help a lot, it seems like the foundations section still needs a bit of work, once you get to it, it would be nice to see a lead before the subheadings under Foundation of Hasidism.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The foundations section isn't done yet, I'm sure those fragments will be fixed once you finish the article up.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It might be helpful to move the Foundation of Hasidism section to come right after history and before practice. Just a suggestion but I think History followed by Foundation would flow well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes. (Is there any way to credit the photographer or owner of the pictures?)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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?
 * There are a lot of very current sources in this article's reference section - well researched!
 * 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?
 * See my suggestion for organization.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, good work linking individuals mentioned throughout.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * More detailed and nuanced outline of the topic. Better readability and organization overall.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that once the sections are all complete and the structure is found, you should do one more pass through to add in text citations to relevant claims. I noticed there aren't any citations in the Foundation section but I think I might be reviewing an article in a 90% complete state.

Overall evaluation
Really interesting article, well written, helpfully organized. With a few suggestions I think this is a solid addition to the wikimedia foundation's archives. Really strong "see also" and "Recorded Baalei Shem" sections.