I think it is fair to say that John F. Walvoord (hereafter W) is a dispensationalist. Yet I do not remember reading in this book any statement claiming that, nor did I mention it to myself in notes I took. I think it is also fair to say that W tends to argue toward a pretribulation rapture (Premillennial) viewpoint although, again, he rarely if at all uses those words to describe his conclusions.
I did find W often to be dogmatic with definite conclusions and often making statements which had the air of being axiomatic despite the fact that many of them involved subjects where views were far from unanimous. Actually, this book and one of the main topics within covers things which are far from unanimous and are better described as controversial. Sometimes it seems that few writers agree with any others.
W does do a pretty good job of covering different viewpoints on any particular passage or even word. Usually he is quick to emphatically express his opinion. I found at least one instance where he dismissed an argument but I couldn't really find a good reason why.
As is appropriate for this Bible book, W writes at length about authenticity, i.e. was it written by Daniel himself in the 6th century BC or is it a pseudo-prophecy written approximately 167 BC.
W convers every verse and discusses word and phrase translations where appropriate including sections which are not nominally prophetic. He does not include showing the original language (Hebrew or Aramaic) with the equivalent letters, but occasionally includes the original transliterated. Footnotes are almost always citations as opposed to parenthetical explanations or rabbit trails and they occur at the end of chapters. There is an extensive subject index and verse index.
This book is not heavy on application and that is an understatement. Little is said about the overall message of the Biblical book.
I have read many books and commentaries on Daniel and Revelation. I used to agree pretty much with a Pretribulation view. But I have been a member of a Reformed church for a few decades and I have softened that view primarily because I found it too slick and had trouble with so many resurrections. All that to say that I found this to be a very good commentary, but I also know enough to see the bias. I still have a very difficult time dismissing the idea that God still has a specific future plan, or "dispensation" for the descendants of Jacob. But I can't say that I have any certainty as to relative timings or even if the Millennium is to be a fixed period of a thousand years. Christ said that no one knows the exact day, but Pretribulation theology based on literal interpretation of numbers should mean that once the Rapture occurs, the date will be set, or at least once the Abomination happens.