User:Fatherjohnmusty/Cybersex trafficking/Efish20 Peer Review

General info
Fatherjohnmusty
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Fatherjohnmusty/Cybersex trafficking
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cybersex trafficking

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

There is a lack of a lead in this article draft. The content that does have an introductory is done very well and pulls the reader in. All information that was edited into the draft is related to the original article.

Content

The amount of content that was added was minimal. There were only a few sentences added, but they were still relevant to the topic. It is also up to date and added new information to the article. The content that was added does give a female perspective on Cybersex trafficking, but it does not address any other underrepresented groups. I would have tried to expand more on the paragraphs where the editor only added a new word. I feel that there can be more to talk about when discussing how online users use threats to gain someone's trust.

Tone and Balance

In the last sentence of the draft, here is one piece of content in the article that does not sound very neutral. Their argument is backed up with a credible source, the way it is written seems to want the reader to lean a certain way.

Sources and References

The sources that were used for this edit are reliable sources. These references can be found in the online journal data base, Taylor and Francis online. This website holds many reliable, relevant, and peer reviewed sources. The editor does a great job at reflecting the source's information to their edits. These sources can be credible and provide more information, but they might not be as relevant since they were published between 2007-2010. There might be new research on Cybersex trafficking if they find more current sources. One source, "Cybersex offender risk assessment. An explorative study" does have a team of authors who worked on the article, but the other has only one. The team of authors for the first article was mostly written by white men so it does not included any marginalized groups. All the links for the references work.

Organization

When it comes to organization, the editor did a great job at adding in clear and informative content. Their edit is free from grammatical and punctuation errors.

Images and Media

There is no use of images or media in the peer's edit.

Overall Impressions

I believe the content that has been added has improved the article somewhat. The editor provided new information to the article which might be beneficial. I think the editor should have expanded more on some parts of the article. There could be a lot to talk about when it comes to consumers who participate cybersex trafficking. I would try to find more relevant research since the online world has expanded over the last few years. It was interesting to bring up how different women also use the cyberspace as well, such as trying not to engage in problematic media. There could be research where there might be women who do partake in cybersex trafficking, but it could be in a different way compared to the men who consume it more. I would have also looked into how might cybersex trafficking affect marginalized group such as women of color. Overall, I believe the editor did a great start at providing their own research to the article, but there is more that can be expanded on.