User:Fay.0373/Adorcism/Macleandkirk 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? 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? The Lead includes a definition/description of adorcism, which is beneficial in that the reader understands right away.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think it does for the most part, but it could be beneficial to briefly illustrate the relationship between Afro-Brazilian religions and adorcism, as the interconnectedness here is very important.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? According to the sources, the content is mostly up to date. That being said, this phenomenon seems relatively old, and therefore sources from 1975, such as the piece by Horst Figge, should be relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As far as I know there is nothing present that does not belong. I do think that it could be helpful if you added some dates for reference though in some of your sections (e.g. Luc de Heusch, Ioan Myrddin Lewis, and Jean-Michel Oughourlian).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content simply includes information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I think that the delineations of content could be suggestive of biases. Which I will discuss below.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Umbanda seems underrepresented when compared to some of the other religious sects.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, what I have noticed is definitely not intentional.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the content is supported by a hyperlink to a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think so. There is a pretty robust bibliography.
 * Are the sources current? Mostly. As I said there is one that that is over 40 years old but I don't think that should be much of a problem here. However, that source is the only one available for the Umbanda, so it might be helpful to have a more current source here.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work. Although some of the sources do not contain links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think that the very first sentence could be restructured to be a little clearer. I think the two clauses here should be switched.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I could tell, there were no spelling errors or grammatical errors. This has clearly been proof read thoroughly.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It might be interesting to describe some of the intersectionalities between Pentecostalism and Afro-Brazilian religions we have recently learned about from Spirited Things.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images help the reader to understand the spiritual process.
 * Are images well-captioned? The first image is not well captioned. I can tell what is going on, but a better caption is definitely required here (remove file). I think it could be helpful state what religious practice the image is related to as well.
 * 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, but some sources need links.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? This piece provides a very thorough and robust set of sources, no problems here.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This is a new article. But yes, it complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? This is a very thorough survey of adorcism. Its greatest strength was its overall clarity, something that is very important for a Wikipedia article. It includes some interesting pictures to keep the reader from getting too bored. I think its important that includes different perspectives, and how adorcism is explored among different religious groups.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the content can be improved by adding some component of intersectionality. It could be interesting to discuss how Pentecostalism and Candomblé play off each other in Brazil. You could probably even use Spirited Things as a source here. I think the last section, "Adorcism and mental illness" should probably contain some more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages (e.g. hypnotherapy).

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think this is a very strong Wikipedia article. It is written with clarity, and will be easy to understand for interested readers once it is published. There are a few very minor additions that I have suggested that I think will benefit your article, but feel free to ignore them. Your use of sources is very thorough, as the bibliography includes a wide range of texts providing different perspectives and experiences. Great work, I look forward to this one making the front page of Wikipedia so the world will finally realize the amazing world of adorcism.