User:Aiapicco/Water conflict/Milan Rosen Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Aiapicco


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aiapicco/Water_conflict?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Water conflict

Lead
The lead section of the rough draft is as of yet empty, and the original article has not yet been updated to reflect the new content in the rough draft. I believe that some of the content discussed under the subheading of Tigris and Euphrates rivers can be replicated or tweaked slightly to fit into the lead section very well.

Content
The content written in the rough draft is very relevant to the topic of water conflict, and the entire rough draft consistently keeps itself on topic very well. The content that has been added is up to date with proper information, and does not have any critical missing details. The rough draft also covers a wikipedia equity gaps by covering environmental impacts in Syria and Iraq.

Tone and Balance
The content that has been added is absolutely neutral and simply sticks to the facts, no claims appear to be biased over another, and no viewpoints seem to be under or overrepresented. There are also no persuasion attempts in the rough draft, nothing trying to convince the reader of any particular view.

Source and References
All the written content is backed up by a reliable source, and there do not appear to be any paragraphs or sentences that make claims without a reference backing them up. The written conflict paraphrases the references well without plagiarizing, and is also very accurate to the recorded citations. The sources are current, and thorough as well. Offering a broad range of knowledge on all the topics in the rough draft. Finally, the links appear to be working well without any problems.

Organization
The content within the rough draft is very well written, being concise, clear, and easy to read. The only grammar point I noticed was that the American spelling for Kilometre was used, but this is obviously not a large issue in any capacity. Finally, the content in the rough draft is very well organized by a series of clear, simple subheadings.

Overall Impressions
If this content were to be added to the original article, I believe that the original article would be more complete by covering a broader range. The strengths of the new content added is that it allows readers of the original article to have access to more historical water conflicts, as well as the direct environmental and societal impacts of water conflicts. The only suggestion I have to further improve the content being added is to further describe the lasting environmental damage to the area where the water conflicts occurred. For example, what is the situation there now?