User:Milan Rosen/Chemical weapon/ReubenLi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Milian Rosen


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Milan Rosen/Chemical weapon
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chemical weapon

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.)

Your writing flows extremely well with the existing article, supported by up-to-date references from an unbiased standpoint. Bringing in multiple perspectives into the debate from a local/international level while keeping these sections precise and relevant to the subject would be a good step forward. I do not think organization will be a problem, however, keep in mind the existing content in the original article, which may require editing before implementing your draft.

No issues with spelling and grammar. Good work.

I think you have a substantial number of references to help build your draft, however, don't be afraid to use reputable news outlets in addition to peer reviewed articles to bring contrasting perspectives into the debate. Furthermore, introducing potential biases of different stakeholders interacting on global/national/local levels combined with historical/geographical significance.

Providing different case studies of chemical weaponry outside the United States would help give a balanced perspective on 'use' and 'disposal'. If you want, providing a lead section into the environmental impacts of chemical weapons would help link to the different sections of the original article and provide significant bulk/content to your draft. Introducing your own sections/headers to the original article is critical to approaching chemical weapons on a multidisciplinary level.