User:Gpp105io/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Commercial sexual exploitation of children
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article for the "Evaluate Wikipedia" training exercise, and because it is relevant to my course and fieldwork.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think that the Lead can be more concise, organized, and comprehensive. The Lead provides a definition of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), and several examples of what CSEC can constitute, but not in a way that is clearly consistent with the terminology used in the rest of the article or aligned with the organization of the rest of the article. It focuses heavily on the types of CSEC, but not the other contents of the article: causes, dangers, prevalence, prevention methods; on the other hand, it also includes information not present in the article (arranged marriage, NCMEC). Additionally, some citations are missing, and the placement of two quotes at the end of the lead feel a bit random.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Here is my feedback on the current content split by section, for the main sections:


 * Child Trafficking Terminology: I think that this section immediately dives into comparing different terms related to CSEC without defining them first. I think that it should start by providing a comprehensive definition of CSEC and child trafficking -- this will provide better context for the overlap (or lack of) compared to the other terms. Additionally, it should do its best to use definitions recognized internationally (not specific to the United States).
 * Types: I think this section can use an introduction before going into the 4 types. I think the 4 types are chosen well but lack consistency in what kind of information is presented. For example, some types have definitions, or refer to specific countries, or talk about the effects on children, while others don't. Additionally, the "Pornography" section can discuss more about how it is a gateway to sex trafficking -- it states this fact, but doesn't explain it.
 * Causes and Dangers: I think this section can be more organized and comprehensive. Right now I feel as though the causes and dangers are just listed, but not in a structured way -- the introduction of stats or examples from various regions (particularly Southeast Asia) also feel randomly placed.
 * Prevalence: This section lacks organization, discussing some stats, tools used to measure CSEC, and even education as a prevention method. I think the stats mentioned can be updated as well. Some additional information that can be presented in this section to size prevalence include stats by region, as well as main hubs for CSEC internationally.

This is my additional general feedback:


 * I think that this article can include more information on prevention methods. Right now it only includes education, but it can dive deeper into methods for controlling supply and demand, as well as the criminal justice system.
 * I think that this article can represent a more global perspective. Right now the article does not seem to intentionally present CSEC in specific context to any region, but it also inserts facts or examples pertinent mostly to Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian countries are a large hub for CSEC, but CSEC is a problem in other regions as well, and they need to be represented.
 * I think that this article can include sections specifically on the profiles of who tends to be a perpetrator/buyer and who tends to be a victims.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is generally neutral, though some wording does not seem to be neutral (e.g. an author writes, "It is a highly useful tool," without referencing who makes this claim). I think that there can be a better representation of viewpoints in some areas. As mentioned previously, a lot of facts and statistics presented in the article revolve around Southeast Asia, when in fact CSEC is a global issue. Additionally, prevention methods highlight the work of international organizations and NGOs and education, but not so much the criminal justice system/legal systems and other institutions (e.g. community organizations, hospitals, etc.).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article uses a lot of relevant, reliable, and current secondary sources, but it is also missing a lot of reliable sources for its facts, as indicated by the top banner. I'm not sure that the sources are diverse or written by a truly diverse spectrum of authors -- they do come from a mix of institutions (e.g. academics, international organizations, and news agencies), but I also noticed a couple of trends. A lot of sources seemed to be written by institutions, or authors with (male) Caucasian names, and quite a handful were about CSEC in the Philippines -- most of the other sources were about CSEC globally, but don't cover specific regions.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think that this article is generally organized and easy to read. However, I think that it can be better organized -- I touch upon this more specifically in the sections above, so I will re-summarize those points here. I think that a lot of the content is "listy," so certain sections can use more subheaders to organize the contents of the "list". Additionally, the types of information introduced throughout subsections of article doesn't feel very consistent. For example, for the "Types" section, some of the types of CSEC had definitions and/or effects on the children, while others didn't.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are only two images in this article -- they are mostly of NGO and educational efforts -- and I think they are peripheral to the topic. To be fair, it is difficult to choose images for such a sensitive topic. However, these images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as they are from the Creative Commons, and they are generally laid out in a visually appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The Talk Page's discussion talk about terminology, wording, legitimacy of sources, increased representation, and the addition and deletion of sections. Some notable topics include:


 * Whether CSEC equates to "Child Prostitution"
 * Increased representation of "Tier 1" areas
 * Validity of statistics
 * International age of consent

This article is rated "Start-Class" on the project's quality scale and "Mid-importance" on the project's importance scale. It is in 3 WikiProjects: Pedophilia Article Watch, Pornography, and Organized crime.

We have not discussed CSEC specifically in class, but I can compare Wikipedia's discussion to my personal contributions on CSEC on Piazza and in my assignments. Wikipedia's analysis of CSEC is more comprehensive and global; mine is more local and specific to the Alameda County/Southeast Asian women population. I think the Wikipedia article is stronger in defining types of CSEC, but it lacks clear information on who constitutes the perpetrators and the victims -- and generally information about demand prevention. I also think that the article is very concrete in the causes it names (e.g. poor families sell their daughters for money), but does not necessarily draw to larger forces that I would analyze (e.g. capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy) -- as these would probably be more "controversial" or "opinionated".

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall I think the article is very much in progress, and underdeveloped. The article is strong in that it has a clear high-level structure, provides a good overview of CSEC, and is neutral. However, I think it can use several improvements:


 * In terms of content, I think that the content presented is very thorough, but lacks organization. Additionally, there are quite a few topics and areas missing from this article (e.g. profiles of perpetrators and victims, global representations, other prevention methods besides education, and the history of the term CSEC).
 * In terms of format and style, I think that the writing style can be a little more sophisticated, and the content can flow better.
 * This article needs more verified sources, as a lot are missing.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: