User:SweetandSaltyGrrl/Koovagam/Oliviapants Peer Review

General info
SweetandSaltyGrrl, Mcolonia12, Cluxenbery, and Runmiaogwu
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SweetandSaltyGrrl/Koovagam - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Koovagam - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The lead has been updated slightly. This group has removed an outdated term and made the whole intro flow a bit better. This was a smart decision, as when I read the original article my first thought was "ooo that term is not correct or necessary."
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence and describes the article's content in a clear manner.
 * The lead does include descriptions of the article's major sections.
 * The lead does not present information not mentioned in the article.
 * The lead is not overly detailed.

Content


 * The newly added information is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is up-to-date and complements the existing information nicely.
 * There is no missing or misplaced information.
 * I am not completely sure what an equity gap is, but this article is all about transgender women and their celebration. So, yes, I would say that the topic addresses underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance


 * The content is neutral, it feels very informative but not coercive.
 * There are no biased claims, at least none that I can find.
 * There are no under or over-represented viewpoints, it all feels very even.
 * The content is not persuasive, like I said it just feels informative.

Sources and References


 * The content is backed up and the sources are good and reliable, but they are not properly formatted within the paragraphs. There are no in-text citations, at least not that I can find. I am unable to identify what information is tied to which sources.
 * The links at the bottom all work, they just need to utilize the cite button.

Organization


 * The content is written very well. To be honest, when I first opened it I thought it was the actual, real article and now I'm feeling like my own article is lacking.
 * The content has a few grammar mistakes but those are easy fixes.
 * The content is divided into sections that make sense and reflect its major points.

Images and Media


 * There is one new image added, and I think it's a nice touch. It gives the reader some sort of visual aid so they can tie information to it and have an idea of what the festival looks like.
 * The caption of the image is correct, but a bit short. I don't really know how images are usually captioned, but I feel like it should at least state the year it is from and who took it.
 * The image is placed in a good spot though.

Overall Impressions


 * The content has definitely improved the overall quality of the article. The existing article is a stub. It's very short and will definitely benefit from this added content.
 * The content could be improved by proper use of in-text citations so they can avoid plagiarism.