User:SammiMaloney/Energy bar/Aaph Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SammiMaloney


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SammiMaloney/Energy_bar?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Energy bar

Lead

 * This is a strong lead that builds well on existing work on the article and recognize the conventions of similar articles. I think you've made the right choice in incorporating the existing lead, which provides a serviceable definition, and the second sentence not only builds on that definition but explains the distinguishing characteristics of an energy bar.
 * The third sentence of the lead I think is important in that it provides an example of how energy bars are practically used, but I also think it could take on a more encyclopedic tone. Right now, it's unclear whether it's simply a report that many physically active people use energy bars as meal replacement, or that they have the nutrients necessary to serve as meal replacement. They're distinct ideas, and I think the sentence could be reworded to either function.
 * The fourth sentence is certainly helpful, but qualifiers like these might not have a place in the lead. I think it's good to keep the third sentence as a sort of "preview" for the Usage section, but the fourth sentence could be moved to that section.
 * I'm not sure why the parenthetical link to candy bars in the first sentence is there, but I don't think it should be.

Nutrition

 * The first sentence in the section seems quite unwieldy to me; almost that it belongs in an article about energy in food. Maybe it would be better to open with the first sentence and append it with something like "...the three sources of energy in food," but I'm uncertain about keeping it at all.
 * I really like the descriptive aspects of the second sentence and its connection to the fast function of energy bars. I think it is important to buttress a claim like that (that these types of carbohydrates specifically provide energy quickly) with a citation.
 * The last few sentences are similar to the second in that they make useful and descriptive claims, but really need citation. A claim like not containing sugar alcohols because they don't need taste improvement, especially, is built on a lot of unbacked assumptions. Since this is a holdover from the original version of the article, I would suggest researching each claim and seeing if there are any reliable sources which support them, and if not, just axing them (as painful as it is).

Usage

 * The first sentence almost seems unnecessary; it would feel more "Wikipedia" to me just to dive into the first point, but I could see it kept with a bit more formal wording if the variety of energy bar usage is important to stress.
 * I don't like the separation of the third sentence from the second since it makes an unfounded claim, so I'm going to go ahead and collapse them. That aside, the examples are good, but I think it could be valuable to explain specifically how they're used during these athletic events (during actual races? after the fact?) if you have a source which speaks to that.
 * The second half of the usage section probably invites the most scrutiny. First of all, the way the fifth sentence is worded implies there are distinct types of energy bar, when it really might just be simpler to say that different compositions of energy bar serve different purposes. Basically, rather than indicating "differences," the sentence should just introduce what they are, and if you do that, I think you could merge or get rid of the next sentence.
 * The seventh sentence is interesting, but to me, it prods at a high-level question of what qualifies something as an energy bar. Is there a certain level of fat/protein/carbs that a bar needs to meet to be called an energy bar? What distinguishes a candy bar from an energy bar whose composition lends it to snacking? These are pretty dangerous questions to be introducing so late into the article, and I would prescribe either making this definition clear (perhaps earlier in the article), or more simply, moving away from making such a rigid distinction and simply stating that some bars are designed for taste rather than nutrition (a claim which would need to be backed by citation).
 * I don't mind the last sentence, I just think it might make more sense if the usage of energy bars for the majority of people had to do with, well, hunger, rather than merely "satisfying hunger," as I assume other kinds of bars could do as well.

Tone and Balance

 * You do a great job maintaining neutrality and balance. There are very few independent claims being made, and almost none that lack citation. The biggest tonal changes I would suggest are in the Usage section, where you aren't making poor claims, but could be stating them in a more matter-of-fact, encyclopedic tone. If the distinction between energy bars is important, for example, then the description of their types shouldn't be "may be." I would also be careful with word choices like "fun treat" and "real... meal."

Sources and References

 * You've done well to select several up to date and reliable sources. I especially like that peer-reviewed journals make up the bulk of your sources. My main suggestion is to ensure that all the claims that are being made are bolstered by citations, including those from the previous version of the article. If they can't be sourced, they probably shouldn't be kept. I would also suggest, mostly as a bonus step, giving your sources another look to see if there isn't more you could glean from them. The introductory sentence of the Usage section, for example, makes shallow claims but cites a rich article about the weight loss function of energy bars. Just something to consider.

Organization

 * The content is clear, concise, well-written, and void of any spelling or grammatical errors. The article is broken down into logical sections.

Images and Media

 * The article contains one image which is appropriate, well-captioned, and in the public domain. This image seems sufficient for the scope of the article, but an image which shows the bar itself might be even more useful.

Overall Impressions

 * Overall, you've done an excellent job of building on the existing work on the article with well-selected research and clear organization. You've introduced useful ideas, especially in the Usage section, and apart from strengthening the article throughout with citations, I think the best next step to take is to refine your writing to meet the tonal conventions of Wikipedia articles. Just by making sure each of your sentences are making evidenced, independently-standing claims, you'll have made a stylistically robust and useful article.