User:Pioneer Rose/Neo-charismatic movement/Caitlinbarr 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? 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?
  • The lead hasn't been updated, but that being said with the new additions to the article it has actually become a more accurate reflection of the information below.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, it includes a strong introductory sentence. However, it might be helpful to briefly clarify what the charismatic Christian tradition is.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Some of the article's major sections are discussed: the statistic about the number of adherents worldwide could be seen as alluding to the sections on history and notable churches. However, a description of defining characteristics and notable practices is not included.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • It does include some information that isn't present in the article. Perhaps adding some information in the history section to discuss in more detail the preceding waves of charismatic Christianity and their relationship to the Neo-charismatic movement would be helpful.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It's concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

It seems to a be a relatively strong lead, that has gotten stronger with the additions to the article. I would suggest perhaps adding a brief overview of the defining characteristics and notable practices, as it would help the reader understand the movement on a practical level in addition to the theoretical level that is already very well-covered. It's good that there's a link to the wiki page for charismatic Christianity, but since the concept is so central to the topic of the Neo-charismatic movement, it might make sense to also include a quick definition. Lastly, I wonder if there's a more recent (accessible) statistic on the prevalence of Neo-charismatic movement, as the 2002 figure is getting quite old. I also think the wording here of "now believed" should probably swapped around to clearly indicate the source of the data.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • All of the added content is very relevant to the topic. Inaccuracies such as the claim that Neo-charismatic Christianity is mainly an American phenomenon have been remedied and replaced with detailed and accurate description of the actual situation. The additions to the notable practices section and the defining characteristics section are also very relevant, major improvements.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content seems to be largely up-to-date, although as previously mentioned, I think that statistic from 2002 should be replaced if possible. I also wonder whether the information about Neo-charismatic movement's technological savvy as a defining feature has changed since 2011. Although I don't know much about the topic, I'd imagine these tactics are probably more widespread nowadays? Maybe it should be looked into?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is no content that doesn't belong. However, since the first two waves of charismatic Christianity are alluded to in the lead, I think there should be some definitions and discussion of their connection to neo-Charismatic Christianity included in the history section. Also, in the very last section on notable churches, there are a few churches missing an indication of their country of origin.

Content evaluation

On the whole, lots of important content has been added! The article gives a much fuller (and more accurate) overview of both the topic's intellectual history and its practical manifestations. It's presented in a clear and readable fashion. However, there are a few areas that could benefit from more up-to-date information, and a few more facets of the topic's history that the article could benefit from exploring.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content added maintains a neutral tone. The only change I would make is the wording of the introductory sentence to the notable practices section. Saying "it's impossible to claim" sounds like the article's making a claim, but if the sentence is changed a little to something like "not all neo-Charismatic adherents participate in all of these practices, as the movement is very diverse" the tone would be less argumentative and more descriptive.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the article is very unbiased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there isn't an imbalance in viewpoint representation.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The article mostly just adds descriptive rather than argumentative content.

Tone and balance evaluation

The majority of content that's been added is descriptive, not necessarily argumentative, so this is not really a problem. The only possible issue is the wording in the notable practices section, as previously mentioned.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, all of the sources are reliable and all of the content is backed up by reliable sources. The only clarification that I would suggest is that since the first sentence of the defining characteristics section has been divided into two sentences, citations for the relevant information should probably go after the end of both of the two sentences rather than just the last one.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Although I'm not too familiar with how much has been written on the topic, the sources seem very thorough to me.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are largely current. The 2002 source might be a bit old at times, but it's supplemented with a good deal of more recent literature.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links I checked all work. Some of the print sources don't have links. For these, maybe ISBN numbers could be added instead?

Sources and references evaluation

On the whole, the sources and references seem very strong. The only real suggestion I have is adding ISBN numbers to book citations so readers can more easily look up your print sources.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content added is very well-written and easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • The content is very polished. There are no spelling errors. There aren't substantial grammatical errors either. I only noticed two very small things: there is one spot where Holy Spirit isn't fully capitalized and a spot where a comma goes outside rather than inside quotation marks.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the organization is very well-done and is a big improvement on the original article.

Organization evaluation

The organization and writing are very strong! I have no substantial feedback in this area.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The content has definitely improved the overall quality of the article. It feels far more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Provides a more accurate and broader account of the history, important figures, and the practices/characteristics of the Neo-charismatic movement.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • As previously noted, there are a couple of areas where more background information should be added or more up-to-date information should be sought out.

Overall evaluation

I definitely learned a lot from reading this article! It was a much more substantive and educational read than the original version, with clearer writing and far more detail. The organization has improved from the original as well. It feels like a largely polished and complete article to me; I think the only expansion needed is on those few areas in the lead that aren't addressed in the body of the article.