User:Milan Rosen/Chemical weapon/Jassimrit Mohindru Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Milan Rosen

Link to draft you're reviewing^[1]
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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 current lead is well-developed and mentions major points in the article so nothing was added to it. This was a good call.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant.
Is the content added up to date? I think so. I do not know if any recent amendments have been made to the rule about disposing nuclear weapons because the cited source is from 1998. If you have not already, you could double check to make sure there are no new laws about this topic.
Is there content missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong, but you could add information about the disposal rules of different countries. At the moment, there is only a section on the United States.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it does not. Chemical weapons have affected historically underrepresented populations, but the article itself is about inanimate objects.

Tone and Balance

You did a good job at being neutral. There does not seem to be any bias which is good!

Sources and References

Most of the sources are fairly recent and the links I checked worked. The sources are reputable. I noticed that you only cited sources 1-3 in your edits. If some of the other ones were used to confirm facts, you could cite a sentence with multiple sources.

Organization

Is the content well-written? Besides a few grammatical errors, the content was well written and easy to understand.
Does the content have grammatical mistakes? There are a few grammatical errors in the "Chemical Weapons Disposal" section. For example, instead of "dispose or deal with" you could say "dispose of or deal with". The potential changes are small, but I recommend downloading Grammarly to make it easier for you.
Is the content well-organized? Yes. You chose good sections to add your edits to. For your "Chemical Weapons Storage", I think "Manner and Form" would be better suited than the "Countries with stockpile" section.

Images and Media

Consider adding a picture of a coastline that has been affected by chemical weapons.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the content you are adding will strengthen the article. It gives a better idea about the consequences of disposal. If you are looking to add more information, you could expand on disposal laws in different countries.

^ "User:Milan Rosen/Chemical weapon", Wikipedia, 2022-06-28, retrieved 2022-07-18

[1] "User:Milan Rosen/Chemical weapon", Wikipedia, 2022-06-28, retrieved 2022-07-18

[1]