User:Gf6f3/Sugar baby/Bem2c4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gf6f3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Sugar baby
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sugar baby

Lead
The lead gives a general overview of what the term entails without passing judgement on those involved. The sources are confined to one publication and a dictionary, which could maybe be diversified for a reader to get a better base for other places to learn more.

Content
The content is very limited in scope, much of it is dedicated to only one version of sugaring. The incorporation of people who engage in sugaring because they prefer the work should also have its own space on the page. Williams includes reference to scholars who have worked more specifically on sugaring relationships, that could be a great page to start expanding your reference section.

"Legality and Comparison to Sex Work" is a perfect place to update the page and discuss the rise of OnlyFans and other virtual avenues for people making these transactional relationships. Maybe another section dedicated to the people who own websites and make money facilitating sugaring would be a helpful addition and could address some of the profiteering and exploitation involved in the profession.

Tone and Balance
There could be better representation for why people seek someone to sugar and what, generally, a sugar relationship looks like in the style of ambiguous entanglements.

Sources and Reference
As the page explands, so will the references. A good place to start it to look at the recent scholarship cited and seeing what information can be tracked back out of those articles. What is included in the references seems dated and there has to be newer information out there.

Organization
The prevalence section seems odd and distracting. The information given only talks about students and limits the scope of sugaring in an unhelpful way.