User:Hockey.Golf.Fishing/Burt's Bees/Frog231 Peer Review

General info
Hockey.Golf.Fishing
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Hockey.Golf.Fishing/Burt's Bees
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Burt's Bees

Evaluate the drafted changes
yes the lead reflects the new contant and what they will be covering.The lead sentence goes very specific and doesn't cover the entire topic. The overall lead does cover all of the sections. It is consise and covers what needs to be covered. Some of the grammar is off but not a difficult fix.

The content is all relevant an dup to date. It is all relevant info.

What does the contribution do well? - The contribution does a good job at explaining what positive things they are attempting to change to make a good impact. It talks about a circular economy which is climate friendly. The addition of hydrogenation is good to mention. This is more climate change specific than packaging.

What additions or changes would you suggest for the contribution? Why would these changes be an improvement? - I would add the links to sources throughout the article to site which info is from which source. There is a tutorial on how to do this. The links at the bottom are in the wrong format, again look at the tutorial. Some sentences are tough to read and just need to be smoothened out. The overall information is good though, some parts need to be re written.