User:Fay.0373/Adorcism/Charlie Phogg Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Faysa.sr
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Faysa.sr/Adorcism

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has certainly been expanded, and now provides a very good basic commentary on Adorcism.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, and no: I think using an undefined concept (exorcism) to define this equally abstract idea might obscure the meaning of the article for certain readers. But, I think the phrase after the semicolon helps clear up some of this issue. However, the use of two semicolons and the complicated phrasing seems more apt for a research paper than an encyclopedia entry.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does a very good job of introducing adorcism as concept, but does not introduce either of the large sections that make up the body of this work. I think it would be helpful if you added two more (v small) paragraphs to introduce both the academic aspect of this word, and its use in different religious contexts: Pentecostal Christianity, Shamanism and Afro-Brazilian Religion
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? nope!
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The first paragraph works well and is definitely trimmed down to what is core.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. See comment on dates below:
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Labeling the section that houses the academic commentary as "etymology" seems to indicate to me that this is a word used entirely as a prescriptive term by researchers. Is this true? If so, you might want to consider prefacing the description of adorcisms within religions with the theorists who connected the concept to the practice. This way, it's more transparent that these comments are interpretations, rather than fact.

I also wonder if you might want to beef up your second section's introductory sentence a little: "Adorcism is term developed and used primarily in sociological and anthropological texts prior to later expansion to include applications in religion, psychology, ethnology, etc." There are also no dates in this section, which makes it difficult to understand the content in terms of the temporal constraints outlined above, namely "prior" and "later." Maybe you should adress why this term was created if exorcism already existed? I'm left wondering about the impetus behind its development.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There doesn't seem to be any comment on Adorcisms by those who are claimed to practice this tradition. What do these people think of the label? Do they accept it? Label it differently? Label as a part of a larger tradition? This would help to flesh out the article.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Nope

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. V much so. This is one of the strongest parts of the rewrite!!
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Kinda a strange question and is hard for me to answer without doing my own research/ being an expert on the topic... But it seems that you have found a diverse set of usages and implementations, so I don't feel that the article is obviously lacking anything except maybe a religious follower's perspective (see above)
• Are the sources current? Sources range from 1962-2020, so yes!
• Check a few links. Do they work? All the ones I tried work well.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some of the writing is more geared towards higher level readers, and I think could use a little simplification: ie. shorter phrases + fewer complex sentences. This is not absolutely necessary, however.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I dont think you need the leading preposition in this sentence: "In pentecostal christianity is so heavily centered in the Holy Spirit"
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I wonder if the "etymology" section should be changed to note that this outline is also the academic interpretations/ usages of this device. Maybe "Etymology and Academic Usage" would make more sense.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. I wish the second picture was a little larger, however. I wonder if there is a way to include pictures that obviously differentiate exorcisms from adorcisms-- without any context I might assume that all the photos here are depicting exorcisms.
• Are images well-captioned? The first image is captioned as an exorcism, is this a mistake? Or if it's purposeful and an exorcism can be an adorcisms, I think the lead might need to be amended to make that clear. In addition, the captions seem to do a good job citing the source, but don't appear to connect the content to the article's content or explain its relevance. That would be a great thing to add, imo.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes. Both are licensed under Wikimedia commons provisions.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. the addition of one more form of media might help.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• I really appreciated the changes you made to the stump of an article. I hope that my tone/critiques above don't give off the impression that I don't think you massively improved your article, which you certainly did by any account. I hope that my comments make sense-- please let me know if you have any qs!