User:Fay.0373/Adorcism/Escallaway 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? (provide username) Faysa.sr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Faysa.sr/Adorcism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the last two clauses of the intro sentence should stand on their own. The note about being the antithesis of an exorcism could be its own sentence later on in the introduction
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise, but still incredibly informative

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
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? One thing that I noticed is that you have an entire section dedicated to a group of old European religious scholars' conceptions of adorcism. I understand those maybe the reference texts on the subject and it may be hard to access sources that testify to actual practitioners' experiences with adorcism that also meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but overemphasis on these very academic very Euro-Christian perspectives is just something to be aware of. I do not think you go overboard in this article, but I would just be mindful of that potential
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? As I mention in how the content can be improved, I think dedicating an entire subheading to adorcism and mental illness suggests that there is a strong link between the two, which a reader could easily understand as negative. I believe renaming the section some more objective or integrating the information into other sections solves that problem.

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
 * 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? The writing style is extremely informative and laden with facts
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? See my comments under how the article may be improved for some reorganizing suggestions

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? I would love if the captions included some more context on the pictures, like location where they were taken if that information if available to you
 * 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. Very relevant and supported by numerous scholarly articles
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The bibliography is comprised of 15 unbiased and authoritative texts
 * 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? Contains subheadings and really interesting pictures
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I would make sure to hyperlink Luc de Heusch's name in your etymology subgroup, Umbanda in the Afro-Brazilian subgroup,.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Very much so
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is robust and thorough. It encompasses many facets of Adorcism, including different cultural contexts in which it is practiced.
 * How can the content added be improved? 1. I would make the connection between Adorcism and Afro-Brazilian religions more explicit. There is obviously a lot of overlap, but the unfamiliar reader might benefit from you outright stating the relationship. 2. Maybe you could combine the Afro-Brazilian examples and the pentecostal christianity section into a singular group entitled "Examples of Adorcism in Modern Religion." I think that grouping is a little more removed and places everything on a level playing field. 3. I find it odd that you dedicated an entire subgroup to "Adorcism and mental illness." It contains pertinent information, but the subgroup headline seems to suggest a potentially derogatory link between a legitimate spiritual practice and mental illness. I would consider renaming the section or integrating the information into other sections.

Overall evaluation
A great draft that dramatically improves upon the preexisting stub. I think It could be rounded out a bit more, but the foundation of a really successful article is there