User:Kowalewskikarley/Theodicy/Morri455 Peer Review

Lead: I do feel that as we move through the leading paragraph it is very well written except that where the article split into talking about a defence, it should have been split from the introduction into a new paragraph. Overall the lead does cover a nice overview on the topic besides that it gets a little too in depth on defence as that is not the topic and it takes up half of the intro.

Structure: The article has some pretty nice structuring once you get further into it, the beginning few sections of the article are a little bit messy to attempt to read through. It does do a nice job sectioning out the theodicitys and religion aspects of the topic.

Balance: Overall I would say the article is very well balanced once you get past the first section as I have said before. They were thorough with each aspect and the history within theodicy. They analyzed and explained each section adequately. One section that does not fit in well to me is the section at the end called essential kenosis.

Neutrality: The content within this writing remain fairly neutral and do not have many heavy leans on certain topics except religion, which is kind of a given with this type of topic. They did not lean heavy on one topic though and did a nice job showing how each religion connects and works in theodicy.

Sources: From what I have seen within the sources is that they all seem to be reliable and relevant to the information provided. There are a ton of citations and references provided, allowing you to read into any section of the writing much further.

Takeaway: Overall the article does a really good job of letting you see into theodicy and how you or anyone of any religion may connect or have been connected to it. I like how everything is laid out other than the beginning of course. After reading the article, it does leave you a little overwhelmed with all the topics it covered, but if you were looking to learn a lot about the topic, this would be a great article.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)