User:Niese05/Cognitive science of religion/Jad Mada Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Niese05


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Niese05/Cognitive_science_of_religion&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cognitive science of religion

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello Niese05,

Here is my Peer Review:

Lead


 * Yes, the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * The Lead includes an introductory sentence that briefly describes and gives insight into the article's topic.
 * No, the Lead does not provide a brief description of all of the article’s significant sections. For instance, the lead does not introduce the concept of the history of the cognitive science of religion, as well as a cognitive byproduct, all of which are major sections subsequently outlined in the article draft.
 * No, the Lead includes information that is present and later described in the article’s sections.
 * The Lead is concise.

Content


 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * The content added is up-to-date and based on recent psychological and religious studies.
 * No, there is no content that is missing or does not belong.
 * No, the article does not address any topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral.
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
 * No, the added content is unbiased and does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Additional Feedback:

I appreciate how you maintained nobility and credibility throughout the article by using a neutral tone and citing scholarly-peer reviewed resources. I especially liked how you incorporated content that is educational, meaningful, unbiased, and relevant.

Organization


 * Yes, the content added was well-written.
 * No, the content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The new content is well-organized, with a clear explanation of the sections to which each edit corresponds.

Sources and References


 * Yes, the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Yes,  the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and peer-reviewed.
 * The sources are current.
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. No, historically marginalized individuals are not described.
 * No, the sources are credible and scholarly peer-reviewed literature.
 * Yes, the links work.

Overall Impressions


 * The article added does improve the overall quality of the article.
 * The content added is well-supported and relevant.
 * The added content can be improved by ensuring that it is also addressed and included in the Lead section.

~Jad Mada