Haminoon:  No, my edit wasn't redundant.  Here's why:  My addition of "child" to "child sexual abuse" indicates that the victim in question was under the age of consent.  But the fact that the age was given as "15" doesn't inform the reader what the age of consent was in the jurisdiction in question.  Unless the reader was already aware of the age of consent in Oregon, he wouldn't know that sex with a 15-year-old counted, legally speaking, as a specific level of offense in that state.  In any case, I was following the instructions in the page "Sexual Abuse" when I added that word, "child".  You didn't explain why you felt that rule was inappropriate to follow.