User:JoshuaERS/Military base/Bque Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JoshuaERS


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : n/a — the Lead in the sandbox draft is from the relevant section in the original article, which may not be needed anymore due to the expanded nature of the "Environmental impact" section.

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? : From what is included in the sandbox draft, it appears as though the added content (in particular, via the citations and references cited) is relevant to describing the potential environmental impacts surrounding the construction and operations of military bases. The content appears to also be up to date, with most sources being from within the last couple of years.

Tone and Balance

All told, the added content is mostly neutral in tone, with information presented in a factual manner — if there was one point to be made, it would be that all of the examples provided in the content are of U.S. origin - and thus, could do with broadening to provide international examples or by narrowing the topic down to a U.S. context.

Sources and References

Within the draft, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, cited in the references. The content appears to accurately reflect what the cited sources say in each case, with the sources being relatively recent, as previously mentioned. The references used appear to cover a diverse spectrum from a cursory look, and all links seem 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? : On the whole, the content added is well-written and easy to read, save for some minor spelling errors; for example, the repeat use of the phrase "United States Forces" could be shortened, in addition to the removal of an extra space in the phrase "A changing climate will impact the operation of United States Forces bases, according to United States Secretary of Defence Lloyd J. Austin III." in the section "Adaptation Efforts".

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? : The sections are well-organized, being broken into individual sections each tackling a single issue; though it should be flagged that section titles (in particular, capitalization in section titles) might need to be edited in order to follow Wikipedia conventions (ie. "Impacts of construction" rather than "Impacts of Construction).

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? : Yes, the images used as part of the article help to enhance understanding of the topic, by providing visual examples/references to added content. The images are well-captioned and laid out in a visually appealing way.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? : The images do appear to conform to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, with two images being licensed under Creative Commons rights and the third being a photo taken by a U.S. government official on duty.