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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Milan Rosen


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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


 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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


 * 1) Is the content well-written? Besides a few grammatical errors, the content was well written and easy to understand.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.