User talk:Brettellier/Environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries

Peer-review feedback
Compared to the original article, you have made improvements over the original article. However, I think there is a lack of content and development in the many headings. Due to the lack of content in some headings, this article can be seen I have observed that throughout the article, no personal views or perspectives were put in place. It is a neutral article not because it claims both the good (innovation) and the bad (CO2 production), but because the majority of the content is neutral data and is presented clinically. The article has clearer sub-headings and a stronger structure with reliable sources and articles than the original on the topic: "Environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries."

The article does show a great general summary of the late life cycle of ithium-ion batteries and its impact on the environment, but due to the article's structure and how certain headings weren't touched, much of the information in most of the headings remains out of depth and superficial to the reader. It could be further improved with added examples and a clearer structure.

Lead:

There is a lack of improvement and content in the lead section. Most of the lead is comprised of the history behind the lithium battery. I would like to see a bit more environmental concerns regarding its impact, ecological effect, energy future, etc. Adding a small summary regarding the content of the article would have been great.

Article body: Content

Heading: Environmental Impact

The sub-heading placements and added content were well put in place. Improvements on grammar and structure over the original article can be seen and are well received. The "continental brine extraction" sub-heading is well researched, with many examples and sources. However, the coverage of the sub-headings is not well balanced. The "Extraction" sub-heading is only 2 sentences long with no added content. "Hard deposits", "Disposals", "Finite ressource" are equal in size and coverage, but I think more examples, sources, and content can be added.

Certain wording can be backed up with examples or citations, such as "some juridictions" or "remain costly". Information and possible changes regarding these words will be appreciated by the reader. A change and review of language would be needed, "noting in general" and "large quantity of water" can be seen negatively in a Wikipedia article.

Probable citations can be added to add more contrast and in-depth information. If citations can be added to the case study "Tagong, a small town in Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture China", I think it will add more reliability and support to the article.

The sections added are great, and I love that you included more on the extractions and deposits, however, a need for improvements and balanced coverage needs to be addressed around the sub-headings. All of the sub-headings might need recalibrations for balanced coverage. A probable mention of mines and a data-sheet would be much appreciated for the sub-heading "Extraction."

Heading: Recycling

There is much need for improvements regarding coverage, added sources, and added content. It is the same as the original article; a possible creation of new sub-headings would be much appreciated. For new sub-headings, maybe add more information regarding storage, public relations, and the evolution of how we recycle through time and different innovations. A new heading from public awareness to innovation can be added to enrich the content found in "Recycling."

Conclusions:

A good improvement over the original with good case studies such as "Tagong" and "Deposits" with neutral views, but much in need of content, balance in coverage, and relevant data can be added. There is a lack of added content in both headings. Adding images and citations will be appreciated. I like your extensive bibliographie but much work needs to be added. Ghostpants321 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)