User:Gf6f3/Sugar baby/Elaineamery Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gf6f3


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
- The lead section does introduce and outline the topic well for a quick introduction, but it doesn't contain much information about what is in the major sections of the page. I think it is short and concise, but it only really goes to define the topic not really giving context or further information.

- The content is fairly up to date, but it would be interesting to see if more current information can be found about this topic. Research might still be going on about this topic, but I think there was a spike in sugar baby participation with its spike in popularity on TikTok and Twitter as well as Covid impacting financial concerns and how people can interact with each other. The information present is good, but I think there can be a lot of information added to make it a more established page. It does address Wikipedia's equity gaps in that it academically presents marginalized groups and topics; for example whether or not sugar babies are sex workers or not.

- I think the page is neutral, the argument presented on whether or not sugar babying is considered sex work is fairly presented. I think both sides have sources to back them up and take up equal space in the presentation of information. I do not think the contributors are trying to be persuasive one way or the other. There is a wide variety of sources that are up to date. The links I clicked on all worked for me.

- The information is well written and well organized. I think if the group decides to add more information it would be easy to create sub sections within the existing topics. There weren't any pictures on this page, but I think adding at least one would be a good idea to make the page more visually appealing.