User:SweetandSaltyGrrl/Koovagam/Troyandabedinthemorn Peer Review

General info
I'm reviewing the work of User:SweetandSaltyGrrl, User:Cluxenberg, User:Runmiaogwu, and User:Mcolonia12.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: Upon first read of their draft, I assumed they didn't include a lead in because there was no section labeled as such and they were choosing to focus on on developing other sections of the article. I then realized that the first header labeled "Koovagam Festival" was the lead in so I would advice clarifying that in your draft. The lead has been updated to reflect new content but some content currently in the lead in of the article has been omitted that I believe is essential, such as its location. Nonetheless, the lead does include a concise and well written overview of the other sections of their draft and is a great improvement from the currently published lead in.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic and up to date, I do believe there is more content to be added but considering its a rough/first draft they are at a great place right now with the amount of information they have. This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The content added in neutral but certain word choices do claim a bias, such as the wording of "dress in their finest" and "spend a day joyously". The choice of finest and joyously I feel aren't neutral or factual claims. The viewpoints seem balanced and equally represented and with the exception of those word choices, this draft doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor or one position or away from another.

Sources and References: All of the sections hold significant sources backing up the newly added information with the exception of "Marriage to Koothandavar and Widowhood" which currently has zero sources cited. All of the links work and the sources are current.

Organization: The content is well-written, some section are more bullet point based but this is a draft so that's understandable at this stage. The braking down of the information into sections makes sense and assists in its organization.

Overall impressions: The content has most definitely improved the overall quality of the article, it added a lot of information not previously included in the article and the article is moving away from being a "stub".