User talk:Edstr121/Aluminum cycle

Peer Review
The lead does seem to reflect new content added and is encompassing, but I would say maybe it is a little too specific. This information could be generalized and made more specific later in the article. The lead sentence could be more generalized and encompassing. The lead does include a brief description of major sections, but it could be more general. The article does not mention health risks to people anywhere else except the lead, and there is other information in the lead that is not covered elsewhere in the article which could be fixed. The lead is overly-detailed rather than being concise. The added information, from what I can tell (I think it is bolded in the sandbox draft), is very relevant to the topic, up-to-date, current, and neutral. There are sections that could be added, but the text that is available seems unbiased. Different perspectives are represented well. It is informative writing rather than persuasive. There could be a wider range of sources used throughout and more sources to support claims. The sources added do support the claims. The sources seem thorough and reflect available literature on topic, but there could be more of them in general. The sources do seem really good and from academic journals mostly, but they are not cited correctly in the references for the most part or for the in-text citations I believe. They are mostly not correctly linked or do not have a link at all, but the couple of links that it does have does work except one of the DOI's does not work and some do not have a DOI. The content is clear, concise, and easy to read which makes it, overall, well-written. I do not see any obvious grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into sections that reflect some major points of the topic, but there are still a lot left out. It is organized well. The image enhances the understanding of the topic and well-represents the topic! It has a good and relevant caption. It seems to adhere to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It is visually appealing as it is laid out now. It seems to meet the Notability requirements and is supported by more than three reliable sources. There could be more sources and does not necessarily exhaust available literature on the subject. It follow patterns of other similar articles such as section headings. It has a lot of links to other Wikipedia pages, but the biotic cycle section could have some as well so it is more discoverable. The article is definitely more complete and the information added really does support the page well and improves the quality of the article. The strengths overall would be that the information and image is very relevant and the article is well-written overall with reliable sources. There could be improvements by a lot more information added regarding this broad topic, the lead being more generalized, and more links to Wikipedia pages. Bohne086 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)