User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry/Pioneer Rose Peer Review

Peer review by Mikayla Haefele

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? Atietz2020 - Ashley Tietz
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Atietz2020/Deliverance ministry

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has not been updated. In my opinion, the lead seems sufficient since it is just supposed to be a brief overview of the topic. (I did not update my lead either - only amended its grammar!) Nevertheless, if you are looking for ways to improve the lead, perhaps in the last sentence you could add just a short phrase that identifies which Christian groups are likely to practice deliverance ministries and which groups find it controversial.
• 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?
  • Yes, the lead indirectly refers to the major sections of the historical roots of the practice, the purpose of the practice, and some of the controversy surrounding the practice.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise and seems to be a good length without restating too much of what follows it.

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?
  • There is no content that does not belong. I do have a few suggestions for adding to the article: 1) In the Biblical Precedent section you rightly point out that Jesus performed exorcisms, but you only include one sentence to say that Jesus' disciples do the same. For many people who perform deliverance ministry, their justification includes passages from Acts that demonstrate that the disciples have this ability, so perhaps you could add some info related to that. 2) You could make many additional links to other articles. 3) The Deliverance vs. Exorcism section seems weak - I would suggest you find more information to fill it out, or delete the section and just nod to the difference with a sentence or two in another section of the article.

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?
  • It could be useful to include more direct information regarding why some Christians do not believe in or respect the practice of deliverance ministries.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No - you did a very good job at stating the facts without making a judgment about whether or not this practice is believable/real or not.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • There are a few sentences (rolled over from the original article) that need a citation. Everything you added looks good - very thorough citations!
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources that you used definitely do the job, but if you pulled from more than six sources your article could be a lot stronger.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • You write very well. What you added looks good. One place for clarity would be the Formal work of ministries section. It looks like this section was originally part of the Methods section, and I think it might be useful to work it back into that section if possible because it does not make a lot of sense when it stands alone. If you do leave the info in that section the way it is, then I would recommend updating the title to clarify that in the section you are intending to talk about ministries that have formed that are dedicated to this practice.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • None that I found. The grammar in the lead feels a bit strange, but I do not currently have any ideas on how to make it sound less clunky.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The Biblical Precedent section is great - I especially appreciated that you separated it from the History section since you technically could have included it there as like the "ancient history" precursor to deliverance ministry, but I think it was a good call to let that info stand alone! Your article has many sections, some of which I think could be melded together for the sake of clarity. For example, the controversy section might fit better in the history section if you added some historical examples of Christian groups that took a stance against deliverance ministries.The Prominent Figures section, because it is so short, also seems like something you could contextualize and include in the history section. [This would cut out those two short sections at the end that seem to need much more info if they are to stand alone as sections].

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?
  • This article is more complete than the original article and more thorough.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The Biblical Precedent and History sections of this article are a major strength, as is the more elaborate detail added to the Methods section.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Improve organization of the article's sections and find more sources on this topic to reflect the available literature.

Overall evaluation - Great improvements so far!

Pioneer Rose (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)