Thanks so much for reviewing. I believe I made all the changes requested.

A couple of unrelated things I noticed:

1. Looks like the documentation is referring to docker compose as docker-compose. The latter is for version 1 of Docker Compose, which has since been deprecated. Should I make a separate pull request to remove the dash from the docker compose commands?
2. In the installation.mdx file, there are references to aleph-worker containers; they are also referred to as worker. Should they be consistent, or are they different? Which should the documentation be using?

Thanks for your changes, I will review them shortly!

1. Looks like the documentation is referring to `docker compose` as `docker-compose`. The latter is for version 1 of Docker Compose, which has since been [deprecated](https://www.docker.com/blog/new-docker-compose-v2-and-v1-deprecation/). Should I make a separate pull request to remove the dash from the `docker compose` commands?

Ah yes, good observation. I believe for consistency we should do this in a separate PR across all of our documentation.

2. In the installation.mdx file, there are references to `aleph-worker` containers; they are also referred to as `worker`. Should they be consistent, or are they different? Which should the documentation be using?

Another good observation. So if one uses our Helm chart everything would be prefixed with aleph-, but since we are not referring to api or ingest-file containers with that prefix we should be consistent here as well and call it worker. And that should ideally be a PR of its own as well.

Thanks for your contribution, @friendly-wolfbat

@stchris Hey, I'm sorry, it looks like the hyperlink I had to the installation page is wrong, when looking at the "Checks" tab. Should I have put a slash before the hashtag?

Don't worry about it, @friendly-wolfbat ! It is our fault because there need to be some CI checks on PRs which are currently not in place. I will take care of fixing it.