User:Krrky/Bauxite/Millie Deroy Peer Review

General info
Krrky
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krrky/Bauxite?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Bauxite

Evaluate the drafted changes
Starting with the lead, I think the information is useful and adds to the topic of what we are talking about during the article. The lead doesn't really seem to include an introductory sentence, it kind of simply jumps right into the facts and doesn't mentions the major sections of the article. The lead may does seem to be a good size, maybe it would be good to just add a little bit of information on the topics that will be discussed in the article. For the content, I have to say everything seems relevant to the topic. The sources seem up to date, with a few exceptions being from 1982 early 2000's, but the information still seems accurate in this context. No sections seem to be missing when compared to the created article. The topic does not address historically underrepresented populations.

Your content added (Socio-ecological impacts) was neutral and filled with facts. The content that you have added seems to be up to date with the references added at the bottom being from 2015 upwards, with the exception of one from 2005. No claims seem to be heavily biased and no viewpoints are over or underrepresented. The content added is very well-balanced and does not attempt persuasion.

Some content seems to still have missing citations. For example the end section of "Aluminium Production" or "Maritime Safety". Maybe try The Aluminium Smelting Process to find more information: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131936/). Not sure if it could be helpful, but it leads to a peer-reviewed article. The content does reflect what the cited sources say for those that are cited. The sources are mainly all current with a few exceptions of some outdated sources (20+ years) but the information still seems accurate to this day. All the links work to the cited sources. The sources seem to be written by a diverse group of people, with many being peer-reviewed.

Your article is very organized and easy to follow. It is clear and concise and doesn't have any obvious grammatical errors. It is broken down into sections that reflect the major topic well.

Overall, the added paragraph at the end of the article heavily improved the article and makes it seem a little more complete. The pictures and tables are one of the biggest strength in this article, as it really helps to help a visual. As a suggestion, maybe ensure every section of the article has a reference attached to it, perhaps even more than one to add certainty. Overall, Great Job!