User:Ahuet2019/Human trafficking in popular culture/Manno195 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Ahuet2019)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ahuet2019/Human trafficking in popular culture

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes in some way they have.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The author is very concise from the beginning to inform readers what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I feel as if the article does state a brief description but they could've added a bit more information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes they do because they go more in depth as to what Human Trafficking is.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The article is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added to the article is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the entire article is up to date and talks about modern slavery.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No everything that is within the article is relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No it is not
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are a couple claims that could be heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? There is a little bit more information that is over represented just a bit much but all in all the article is well balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not necessarily because the article is not very persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No it is not because there are no sources that are visible on the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No because there are no sources
 * Are the sources current? No because there are no sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are some links that give a deeper definition to a word and they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is clear, concise, and to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the author breaks down the article very well.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The author adds some points that are not touched in the original article
 * How can the content added be improved? Elaborating more on some key points would be beneficial.