User talk:Celestepl/sandbox

Hey Celeste! Hopes this works. It looks great, but there are a few things that I think could improve. Here are my main suggestions that I think would benefit your article:

-I would hyperlink glossolalia

-In the statistics section, I would try to find more than one source for all those numbers

-I think my biggest critique would be the choice of sources. In particular, I am worried about the objectivity and veracity of "Theopedia" and the Economist article entitled "Why Charismatic Christianity is Popular with Migrants." Theopedia is cited frequently, but I couldn't find where the Economist article was referenced. My concern with Theopedia is that it is not a scholarly source and I am skeptical of its reliability. Not necessarily a condemnation, but rather encouragement to take a second look at the source. I found the Economist article to be slightly biased against Charismatic Christians and direction and paternalistic I think it suggests that Charismatic Christianity might be taking advantage of the instability in a migrant's world and imply that it is a bad thing (not that I disagree). Perhaps you could make note of the potential bias in the article to disclose it to your readers

To recap according to the Wikimedia rubric: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? -Yes, everything that is there looks great and is very informative. I'm not sure the statistics section requires its own subheadline and could maybe be primarily integrated into the intro and then dispersed throughout other relevant subtopics. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -I think the immense popularity of pentecostalism amongst South Americans should get more attention. You briefly note "Many other congregations were established in the rest of the world," but as international branches compromise such a large part of the church's membership, I think it deserves some more attention. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? -Yes, all links are live and the citations relate to the contents of the article Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? -Mostly yes, but see my notes above about the Economist article and adding more citations for the statistics section. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? -All sources seem to be contemporary and relevant to the present day

It looks great, Celeste! Keep up the good work :) Escallaway (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)