User:Gpp105io/Commercial sexual exploitation of children/Tasfiaxnawal Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Isabelleosorio
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Isabelleosorio/Commercial sexual exploitation of children

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, she edits the article to tailor it to be more understandable and factually accurate.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes they are up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, the content isn't missing and it fits as she added and edited existing sections.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, it addresses topics that is related to underrepresented populations, this being exploited children.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

The content added was neutral, it just replaced some of the unnecessary content from the article from before.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no biases, only factually supported evidence/statements.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoint puts child sex trafficking in a negative light, and rightly so because it is talking about how to make this illegal act stop officially.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it simply talks about how to stop commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, they are all backed up.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources are thorough, and they talk about the action agenda for child abuse/child sex trafficking system, and they talk about the protocol of going about the issue.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, they are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The authors seem to be experts on the topic, but maybe if she were to include an author with experience/marginalized in this category, it would give more depth in the article she is editing.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it was much better than the previous article.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No, there is no grammatical/spelling errors.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the content was added onto sections that previously existed in the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, she did a great job deleting badly worded phrases and replacing them with better phrasing and more factually based statements.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The content is more coherent and flows better than the previous article.


 * How can the content added be improved?

More sources can be used/ more evidence based findings could be included.