User:Pioneer Rose/Neo-charismatic movement/Atietz2020 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) Pioneer Rose
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pioneer Rose/Neo-charismatic movement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes-- it includes additional information about why neo-charismatics are thought to be a bigger group than first- and second-wave groups combined
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly, but that doesn't seem super necessary to me.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No-- it's all very basic information that is expanded on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's pretty concise. There's some detail (like, names of specific groups), but that seems helpful because it would allow the reader to follow the links to other articles if they don't understand/want to learn more about those groups.

Lead evaluation
Really good! It might be helpful to add a bit of information about their beliefs/practices, since those are two of the major sections.

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? Not that I could tell-- it seemed really complete to me.

Content evaluation
I particularly appreciated the brief/concise description of spiritual mapping in the "history and prominent figures" section. It might be helpful to add a longer description of that in the practices section. I also think it might be helpful to break it up into two sections (do "history" and "prominent figures" separately, just for simplicity for the casual reader who might be skimming, and may care more about one section or the other and not want to read the whole thing). Not absolutely necessary, but maybe something to consider.

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? Not that I'm aware of.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Very balanced and neutral.

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? As far as I can tell, yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
You added a lot of sources, and it seems very complete.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, although I think you could potentially add more information to the notable practices section, and then maybe do sub-sections to organize it. I think a lot of the time what people are most interested in when they go to wikipedia is that sort of thing, which tells more about what the group does. That also could be an opportunity to educate people, since a lot of people have preconceived notions about this type of religious movement.

Organization evaluation
Good organization, could split a section into two and maybe add more information and subsections to the "practices" part, but not necessary, just something to consider.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The sections "defining characteristics" and "notable practices" are both particularly good-- they add a lot of information that was missing from the original article and significantly enrich it.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add more information about notable practices.

Overall evaluation
Really thorough additions to the article, and a lot of added sources.