User talk:Bcmonigold/sandbox

I like the formatting for the article, and the extra information. It is a good idea to keep the page strictly about calcium caseinate (it looks like at one point there was a page for sodium caseinate but it redirects now to the article for casein), and not have details of other caseinates unless another page dedicated to caseinates appear. I'm thinking that because the main source of casein is milk and so it is going to be dominated by calcium caseinate. The original article had some uses of calcium caseinate as an antacid, were you thinking of keeping those? --Drglheard (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
The overall structure is very good. I liked the physical properties section that explained how cation caseinates form. The chart with the percentages and function was a nice addition. I would recommend using a different term than "divalent" cation due to that being a chemistry term that most people probably wouldn't understand. I noticed you put a link to sodium caseinate but not ammonium or potassium. It could be that there aren't any pages on those, but it is something I noticed. You might want to consider changing the wording of this sentence: "All other caseinates are capable of withstanding temperatures of 140°C." Due to it coming before the information about calcium caseinate, the wording is a little bit awkward. You might also consider putting a link to something talking about hydrophobicity when talking about hydrophobic regions. The top 2 references are good, but isn't "Food Weekly News" a newspaper-like source? It might be helpful to American readers to add the Fahrenheit temperatures in parentheses after the Celsius temperatures. Overall, the content coverage was well put together. The content was presented in a neutral way with a clear structure. Very well done. Ajjackson.chem (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)