User talk:Ntran75/sandbox
Sara's peer review
[edit]The lead section should summarize the article more. The first sentence is a good start, but more details could be added.
The article is well organized. The order of sections and subsections make sense.
All sections are the appropriate length and necessary to the topic. They seem to reflect the published literature well and does not draw conclusions.
The article seems neutral, with no particular perspective or opinion conveyed. It reflects both positive and negative aspects of slag.
Much of the ore smelting, compositions, and classifications sections are largely from one or two sources. More sources could be used to make these sections stronger. Additionally, the link for source number 6 did not work for me - it might be broken. Sdenviogeo (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)