User:Ly-So99/Feminist Perspectives on Sex Markets/Mosorio19 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? (provide username) Ly-So99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ly-So99/Feminist Perspectives on Sex Markets

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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
The Lead could use a better introductory sentence. Currently, the sentence "Feminist perspectives on sex markets vary widely, depending on the type of feminism being applied" doesn't really introduce the topic of information and seems out of place as the first sentence. The following sentence, however, offers a definition of sex markets which seems like a better introductory sentence for the topic of sex markets. I would suggest incorporating the significance of feminist's views on sex markets, why it's even necessary to have a wikipedia page about it, to help create a better introductory sentence. There doesn't seem to be a description of the article's main sections, yet, but I'm sure they'll be included eventually. There was some mention of "autonomous" and "non-autonomous" sex trades, but didn't really go into depth about what the distinction between the two are; as well as the indirect and direct sex market. There doesn't seem to be much elaboration on these topics throughout the article yet, but at least the topics are introduced. The Lead is a work in progress, with basic introductions to topics that will be discussed in the article, providing a good foundation. Now comes more information and description to really finalize the Lead.



Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content available thus far, radical feminism, is relevant to the topic, as it elaborates on the radical feminist perspective on sex markets. The content is up to date, as it's the main content available for the article. It's quite well-written. Very good use of vocabulary to sound informative and reliable, yet concise to make it easily understandable. There are a couple subheaders beneath it that imply the writer will be including information on the other types of feminist perspectives, but the content is not yet available.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
While the content itself is opinion-based, the way it is presented seems very neutral. All viewpoints were presented in a factual way and always with a citation. The writer seemed to touch on both the argument for and against sex markets, so all viewpoints were represented. I do think there should be more elaboration on all viewpoints to really get a sense of the difference between these different standpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All content is cited and backed up by reliable sources. The sources are current, ranging from early to mid-2000s. All sources reflect the information included in the article. The links works perfectly fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content is very well-written and sounds professional and reliable, especially the section about radical feminism. There were no grammatical or spelling mistakes that I noticed. The information, though not much, seems well-organized so far. The outline for how the article will look like seems to be well-organized as well.

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


 * 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
No images or media have been added yet.

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

New Article Evaluation
The articles seems to reach Wikipedia's notability requirements. It contains reliable secondary sources and almost every piece of information is cited. The list of sources is not much since it's a new article, but the list so far accurately represents available literature on the subject. I also noticed the article also contains links to other articles so it is more easily discoverable, which is very smart on the writer's part. The article does look quite unfinished, but it resembles other wikipedia articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article seems to have a very good foundation and potential to be really great. While there is a lack of content, the way the headers are set up show how organized the article will be in the future. It's a very interesting topic that I'm sure lots of people will find interest in and begin to contribute to. I look forward to how the rest of this article turns out.