User talk:Saborbie/sandbox
Article
Overview
1) Beginning with the title, the article starts well. It's short and encompassing of the topic at hand
2) I wouldn't say the first sentence is a good overview of the reading, it states a fact but not what the rest of the reading will reflect. This also affects the first paragraph which talks more about how Christianity got into Ghana instead of Christianity in Ghana itself.
3) The article does a great job of explaining jargon and speaking in a non-argumentative voice. This is also accompanied by the author refraining from using words that are first or second person perspective.
4) The article uses a bullet list. In my opinion the bullet list is appropriate to the material but it is a decently sized list which doesn't really align with Wikipedia's format.
5) The text does a good job of mentioning other relevant Wikipedia articles, but the sources for this article aren't very reliable. Information is pulled from blogs, biased readings i.e. (Muslims Cry Foul Over Population Figures), and a source with a parked domain where the information isn't available to public viewers.
Suggestions
1) The article should begin with a topic statement and first paragraph that directly reflects Christianity in Ghana, in my opinion it currently reflects the spread of Christianity in Ghana which isn't the main focus of the rest of the article.
2) The article should fortify its points with more credible sources. The sources here are either not scholarly caliber or not accessible to anyone due to domain website issues. (A few articles to refer to are Religion in Ghana, Christianity in Africa
3) The article mentions 8+ types of Protestantism in Ghana and only elaborates on two. If the article should be so broad it would make sense that the articles references the multiple types of Protestantism and elaborates on each one noted.
4) Put the topic of the article in bold
Article
Overview
1) The article begins with a clear and concise title that reflects the purpose of the reading. This is followed by a clear topic statement that explains what PC Ghana is. The topic is in bold and it defines the subject to be elaborated on in the article.
2) The article is clear and explains any jargon used for the common person to make sense of the content. Additionally only one quotation is used and though not explained, is linked to a different Wikipedia article that adds context and definition to the jargon.
3) The language used is non-persuasive and refrains from using words that suggest the first or second person perspective. The article also uses few headings and uses bullet lists sparingly which align with Wikipedia's common format.
4) In regards to citations these are majority websites that directly pertain to the subject. These are not scholar caliber academic journals. The article does use many references to other Wikipedia articles in each paragraph to redirect great sources of information that isn't provided through general text.
Suggestions
A big suggestion I have is to find sources that are scholarly in caliber and from diverse places. Here the sources mostly come from online websites that format like blogs. I suggest finding sources from journals, books, encyclopedia's etc. to really make the cross check of research stable and credible. (See Protestantism, Ghana)Otherwise I feel this article contains many great statistics, an in depth origin of PC Ghana, it's former and current leaders, it's growth, and change in leadership through European influence.
Article
Overview
1) The article is titled concisely and appropriately. Following the title is a clear topic sentence that let's you know exactly what the article's intentions are. Unfortunately the first paragraph doesn't contain much information about the church itself, just it's short origin in two sentences. The quality feedback checklist emphasizes that you should be able to read the first paragraph and get a great gist of the article as a whole. This may reflect the short article to begin with but it isn't very helpful as an opening paragraph.
2) The writing for the most part is clear with little uses of jargon, but some aspects of uncommonly known things aren't redirected to a different Wiki page or explained in the article. The language is not persuasive and it refrains from the first and second person perspective. The article also aligns with Wikipedia's standards of few headings, (this one has maybe three) and the sparing use of bullet lists.
3) Some of the sources are scholar caliber from the Cambridge Press, the other half are blog/website used. There are many text links to different Wikipedia articles for elaboration on more vague topics.
Suggestions
The big suggestion I have for this article revolves around the content. This is an extremely short article on a broad topic with many different connecting roots. There are many ways to expand on this topic, for example it's educational role in Ghana, membership, roles in the church, the church's message and purpose, the role of outside influence on the church, etc.(See Presbyterian Church of Ghana)I also would use one more different type of source, there are scholarly press, website, and one more like a book would make me consider this a diversely researched topic.
Jessica's Peer Review
[edit]Hi Solomon,
I think your lead sentences do a great job encapsulating the history and importance of the Methodist Church Ghana. However, I wish there was a bit more information provided about Rev. Joseph Dunwell's contributions before delving into Rev. Thomas Birch Freeman. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you acknowledged the roots of the Methodist Church Ghana and, more generally, Methodism in West Africa.
Overall, the article is structured with different subject headings that are easy to understand. I would suggest making another section titled "history" so that you can separate the historical information from the church's role and function.
In terms of the information itself, the introduction contains the most information as of right now. However, I'm sure that you will add more to the "practices" section in the future. Your article is also written neutrally with credible sources/citations. The only thing I would suggest here is to incorporate sources from "minority" perspectives--works that cover other religions besides Methodism or authors writing from an outsider's perspective. I would also watch out for the constant use of the word "typically" in the "practices" section.
You're on the right track!
Thatgirljessie (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Kendall's Peer Review
[edit]I definitely concur with Jessica's points about the history. I felt that information dominated the overall article. I thought the practices section was a good start. It might even be a good idea to look at how these practices differ from other popular religions. I also think it would be a good idea to look at what people are involved within the methodist church. One of the things I have recently been researched is what people move towards pentecostalism over some of the other forms of Christianity. By situating the people, it would give more context overall about the methodist movement in Africa.
I thought that the list of presiding bishops was helpful because it shows the trajectory of leadership within the organization. It might also be good to look at some of the major contributions of these bishops and how they shape the organization. By just listing the names of the presiding bishops, it seems like extraneous information.
Overall I thought that what you have added to the page is a great start. It might even be a good idea for us to sit down and bounce some ideas off each other because it seems like we are working on similar topics. I had not thought about having a practices section and now that I reviewed your page, I think this could be a good place for me to incorporate information on baptism and feeling the Holy Spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krogers2 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)