User:EaglesEyes1/Insects as food/Vansam823 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EaglesEyes1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Insects as Food Draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Insects as food

Peer review
Hello, EaglesEyes1 here is my review:

Lead
The lead is not edited; however, it appears to be a concise description already. Some of the citations could use a secondary, as one appears to be a website and not a scholarly article or book. The 1st reference is from a university website which I believe can be considered reliable; however, a second one could solidify it.

Organoleptic characteristics
I like this new section idea, it seems very relevant to the topic! Although it can be subjective and I am not sure how it works in terms of neutrality because the way someone experiences something may be different to others. However, you backed almost everything with multiple reliable and updated sources. You also do not go into great detail and keep it generic in terms of flavors and how the source will effect the flavor, which I think keeps it neutral. You are also not swaying people in any direction, just briefly describing.

For the insect names, I am not sure if its regularly custom for Wikipedia to use scientific names but maybe include them in brackets after the common names. Some insects have different names in other countries; however, scientific names are the same everywhere. Although, you did include the links to the insect pages so it may be fine that way.

"Cooking method is considered the greatest influence on the insect flavor." Copied fromUser:EaglesEyes1/Insects as food


 * This line seems to lack neutrality has saying greatest is saying it is the best and although it may be true its seems to be swaying people in a particular direction.
 * Maybe change it to something like this: "different cooking methods can influence and/or change the flavors. " The way you describe the methods after is kept neutral and descriptive without using subjective adjectives that would make one method seem better then another. Using mild and complex was a nice touch.

The Table


 * I think it is missing a title/caption or that paragraph needs to be bolded. I tried to find specific example and instructions on what is needed for a proper table in Wikipedia, but I found it difficult. Here is a link of a page I found: Help:Basic table markup. They seem to have the title above and bolded for all the small examples. This may be a question for the TA or Wikipedia experts.
 * If you wanted to put more detail into the table, you could put which preparation method creates what aroma; however, again this may be subjective. If time permits and it does not overcomplicate anything. This may also help people who want to cook a insect and get a specific flavor out of it. i.e., "I want something spicy, adding agave worms dried may do the trick"
 * The development stage is missing for some of them, is it because the information is lacking or because it does not matter? If it does not matter, maybe state "all stages" or something like that.

Challenges and safety concerns

 * "In general, insects harvested from the wild pose a greater risk than farmed insects, and insects consumed raw pose a greater risk than insects that are cooked before consumption. Feed substrate and growing conditions are the main factors influencing the microbiological and chemical hazards of farmed insects " Copied fromUser:EaglesEyes1/Insects as food
 * this section is still under revision; however, an explanation for why harvested wild insects pose a greater risk versus the farmed ones may be needed. It is a statement backed with a citation; however if something is stated a explanation as to why may be required. Multiple citations for it may also be needed to show that it is not just one study that shows this.
 * Is the image for all edible insects in general or just the farmed ones? I would be specific about it as it follows the above statement.

"The hazards identified in the above table can be controlled in various ways. Allergens can be labelled on the package to avoid consumption by allergy-susceptible consumers. Selective farming can be used to minimize chemical hazards, whereas microbial and parasitical hazards can be controlled by cooking processes." Copied fromUser:EaglesEyes1/Insects as food


 * It appears here ideas are trying to be suggested as methods to eliminate hazards. This comes off across as not neutral, if these are practices that are used it should be stated and not suggested.
 * The last sentence "whereas microbial and parasitical hazards can be controlled by cooking processes." (Copied fromUser:EaglesEyes1/Insects as food) is a well known fact for food in general, but it is worded in a way that seems to be a suggested method. Restructuring may be needed. An example: "Methods to eliminate microbial and parasitical hazards are through controlled heated cooking processes". (attach two citations)

General Content

 * Everything added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It appears that the content belongs and nothing is missing.
 * The article does not deal with a equity gap or address historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance/Neutrality
The Organoleptic section is neutral other then that one sentence stated above. It is very well written. It is not biased and does not overrepresent, or underrepresent any topics. It seems to be a good length n relation to the rest of the article and the contents being presented.

The safety section which is still under revision does have some issues with neutrality and seems to be leaning towards suggestions as stated above.

Sources and References

 * The new content is almost all backed up by a reliable secondary source, there are some with just one citations. However, there are a lot with two to three citations. All references are from reliable and updated sources.
 * The content being cited reflects the original literature.
 * The references are used evenly throughout the added content.


 * Reference 11 and 14 are the same source.
 * All the links for the references worked except for the 2nd reference ISBN number.

Organization/Clarity
The added content is all very clear, concise and easy to read. There appears to be very little grammatical or spelling errors.

Where the new sections is placed seems to be a good fit. However, I would place "Edible insects for industrialized mass production" with the farming section below your new section. Farming and Industrialized production are similar, as even if it is industrialized its still considered farming. Placing both of them below the food descriptors may give it a better flow because its insects as food and this article seems to be talking about it more as how it is eaten and not exactly how it is produced. They are also both heavier and longer topics which co-inside with the safety section. Keeping the shorter lighter stuff at the top and the longer and heavier stuff at the bottom may help with flow.

Images and Media
Risk Factor Image


 * I like the visual representation.
 * As mentioned maybe fix the caption.
 * The image is also very larger, whereas most on the page are small and on the side. It appears most Wikipedia images are usually on the smaller size and placed on the side.
 * The image is also a little on the blurry side, possibly because it is enlarged.
 * The image is cited properly and this adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulation.

Overall impressions
Good job on the additions so far! The added section is well done and I believe it has improved the overall quality and completion of the article. The overall strength of your additions so far is your citations and references. The safety section being revised still requires some editing; however it is on the right tract with the image and re-formatting from the original article. The original is very suggestive and more discussion based then informative. This is a bit of a tricky section as it is a lot of possible issues that may arise from insects as food and examples of actual safety issues will be needed. The tone will just need to be kept neutral and non persuasive.