User:BrendanMagee/Korean War/Bque Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BrendanMagee


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrendanMagee/Korean_War?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Korean War
 * Korean War

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : n/a — the additions to the article do not necessitate changes to the main article's lead.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic and up-to-date — is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? : Overall, the content added in the draft is relevant to the environmental impacts of the Korean War. Given that much of the information is historical in nature, it appears to be up-to-date to that end; at the same time though, given that the information is mostly historical in nature, it might be a good idea to source additional content (ie. specific impacts) for the article. As for missing and misplaced content, not being an 'expert' in the history of the Korean War does make it more difficult to put forward suggestions — that being said, given the wealth of topics within something like the Korean War, one would presume that there might be other topics to expand on/(maybe already planned, but just not included in the draft?).

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, or viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: On the whole, most of the added content appears to be largely focused on environmental impacts from a U.S. perspective (both in terms of cause and effect) — I wonder if there might be an angle to introduce the environmental impacts that the Soviet side experienced? Additionally, the content seems to be fairly one-sided in tone, in particular, the final section (Future World Standing) might be something to look over in terms of tone and wording (e.g. "defenseless" might be too strong?).

Sources and References

On the whole (and presumably this is just because it's a draft version), the article likely needs a few more (good-quality) sources before the content gets published; in particular, I would assume that the information provided by the VA Department might be able to be supplemented with additional points from other peer-reviewed sources. That being said, the existing links do appear to work.

Organization

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? : Generally speaking, the content is clear of spelling and grammar errors — a note should be made though, on the definition of "American"; could be better to use "U.S." when discussing items relating to the United States.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? : The content added is relatively well-organized, with section headers breaking up the different types of impacts (geographic, human and economic) that the Korean War had.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? : Although the images are well-captioned and laid out in a visually appealing way, their impact on the article (and the enhancement of understanding) that they provide may be a little less clear — the existing page already has a number of images portraying military action during the war/the added images aren't entirely clear in how they depict environmental impacts.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? : Looking at the images in more detail, it appears as though the images are licensed under CC-2.0 despite the warnings shown when clicking on the images — it might still be prudent to take another look at/double-check the licensing on these photos.