User talk:AmyLynnae/sandbox

Peer Review
Lead Section Comments: It’s very descriptive and to the point while providing a fair overview of the article. It isn’t redundant of the article’s contents. You can probably avoid mentioning sorption in this section and put it in a “related articles” section instead as it takes away focus from the article’s topic. It might also be good to add links to the Wikipedia article on solvents for readers unfamiliar with this term.

Structure Comments: The article follows a logical order since you present a good idea of what leaching is before going into further detail, but there aren’t any subheadings yet to help readers find specific sections. These subheadings could be those you come up with or those already used in the existing article. For instance, a subheading called something along the lines of “Leaching Mechanisms” may be fitting for the last paragraph and the table that follows it.

Balanced Coverage Comments: The article maintains balanced coverage, which is to be expected since this topic isn’t really something that allows for opposing viewpoints. Section lengths correspond with their importance, and all information is on-topic and relevant. The article does a good job mentioning both ways in which leaching occurs in nature and applications of leaching. It may be good, however, to include more information on ways in which leaching can be harmful (i.e. pollutants leaching through soils, etc.) if you weren’t already planning to add it in further edits. This will ensure complete coverage of the topic.

Neutral Content Comments: The article does well in terms of neutrality. The only sentence that could potentially count as an unsupported claim would be the last sentence of the first paragraph under the “Article” section. To avoid this issue, you could either cite a reference for this sentence, delete it, or add a real-world example in which knowledge of the leaching process allowed people to stop it (if harmful) or use it to their benefit.

Reliable Sources Comments: Aside from the claim mentioned in the above comments on neutrality, the article provides a trustworthy source for all its claims. In addition, the sources are cited fairly evenly, so no one source is too heavily relied upon. Cited sources appear to be represented accurately.

Good job! Gtssamie3 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)