User:Jamieturner11/International adoption/Sr101skl Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Jamieturner11
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamieturner11/International_adoption?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template :
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_adoption :

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * The lead in the sandbox isn't sufficient to summarize the article, but the article itself already has a really good lead, so I don't think it's necessary for the editor to rewrite it in their sandbox.

Content

 * Content is relatively recent with only one article written prior to the 2000s
 * Adequately explains the critiques but doesn't offer views of people that approve it, so maybe an article from the other side of the issue could be used to keep the writing equally representative of both opinions
 * All information fits the article well and is applicable, but isn't labeled as to which header it will go under

Tone and Balance

 * The authors voice is neutral, and it is clear the opinions being explained are from those who wrote the sources
 * Only the negative opinion is explained however, not the positive one (though if a positive view of this topic just isn't really a thing, disregard this)

Sources and References

 * One of the sources is listed twice on accident
 * One of the citations in the reference section hasn't been converted to a link yet
 * The majority of the citations are relatively recent
 * All the links work and lead to reputable journals
 * In the actual body of the page, as long as you have the citation links with the numbers that link it to the references at the bottom, I don't think you need the in-text citation with the author's name and year it was published

Organization

 * Content is well written and broken down into logical paragraphs
 * There are a few spelling errors throughout

Images and Media

 * No images or media yet, but we haven't gotten to that assignment yet so it's okay

Overall Impression

 * The content is very well written, concise, and clear! It is easy to read and understand as a Wikipedia article should be. My only thought would be to just elaborate a bit more on the various points existing within the article, but the writing in the sandbox only talks about one topic and there just isn't very much information. What you have is very well done though!