My initial issue with the article is that the concept is pretty good. Some would argue it could be considered cliche (that is, if you only read up to "World War No Man's Land aspect), but there are elements of this entry that really shine. For one, the idea of an eternal No Man's Land, possibly going back thousands of years, is a fascinating concept, and it's a shame that it's already been categorized as a "world war one" article, even when that's not really the point of it.
What holds it back is the language in some sections. I understand I'm one to talk, since it happens in my articles all the time, but the words you use tend to go a bit overboard and risk coming across as edgy rather than descriptive of the entry itself. While I don't think thresholds necessarily need to be describing it (a la Folamh Gard or A Haunting Beneath Paris) explicitly, lines like "your thoughts are sent into a spiral of imagining into what horrors they felt" and "akin to the screams of those damned to the depths of the underworld" sound somewhat strange and forced in between the clinical tone.
It doesn't have to be clinical, but at the same time, it brings up a lot of vague, abstract imagery that sounds off-topic. Like the in-universe author stops mid-sentence to insert a brief rant. That can be good, but in this case it comes across as somewhat edgy.
Some examples of lines where this tone works:
Scriptures from all around Eurasia state that the savagery and blood-lust of the Mongolian Horde were so plentiful that it still lingers centuries after.
This is on topic, minimal, and the flowery language does not contrast the legitimate description.
Repetition is also an issue. I'd go to the page, hit Ctrl-F and enter "scream", "mud", "blood", "soul", etc and you'll see what I mean.
Overall, -1. This could work, and I know you can make it work.