User:Geghk8/Leaching (metallurgy)/Aljgm6 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Geghk8
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Geghk8/Leaching (metallurgy)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Leaching (metallurgy)

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.)

I am just going down the checklist with my comments here.

From how the training showed us how to add our information it was a little confusing to read the original article and then have yours all below and having different sections.

The content added is relevant to the article.

Sources seem good

The jokes on titles should be somewhere in notes and not in the middle of the article, I know this is a draft but it creates distraction from the reading.

Content added seems neutral because it is all fact driven from what I can tell.

Links all work, sources are thorough.

Organization is good

no images or media added at this time.

I don't know what your partner has added to this but the history and origins seems like a very good start to adding to a poorly executed original article. I know it is tough to find sources sometimes but to have a range of source from more then just the 2000's helps to ensure the facts are not wrong. Science doesn't particularly change much but how things are done change pretty drastically from the time of your first source in 1891 to your last source in 2024. The origins and history in my opinion, should be placed above the chemistry of it. It would make it easier for readers to know what metallurgy is before reading how the science works, especially for people who know nothing about science.