User:Fay.0373/Adorcism/Lucyweiss 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

 * 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 maybe bring up exorcism in the next sentence? Maybe something more like "Adorcism is when spiritual entities through being possessed is welcomed by the host; even rendering positive outcomes. It is essentially an entithesis to exorcism.."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes but maybe introduce some of the people that are discussed later
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead is a good introduction to what is talked about later
 * 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, most of the citations are very recent, nice.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so, except maybe could connect to the see also section?

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? 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? 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? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In this sentence "Adorcism is term developed and used primarily in sociological and anthropological texts prior to later expansion to include applications in religion, psychology, ethnology, etc" there should be an "a" after adorcism and in this sentence "His work is reliant on his desire to explore trances in their many forms: sorcery, shamanism, possession, dreams, sleepwalking, hypnosis, drug use, passionate love, and even out of body experiences such as elation through song and dance" change from passive to active voice "relies" instead of "is reliant"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes really well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are two but could be more
 * Are images well-captioned? One is, but the first one says ""File:Exorcism before baptism (3799992272).jpg" by Ted is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0" so maybe could be better-captioned
 * 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?
 * 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? Yes good job
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is well-organized and you added a lot of good content, nice!
 * How can the content added be improved? Make sure to use active voice and maybe add more pictures but overall so good!