User talk:Butz101/sandbox

John Butz Peer Review
Lead Section

Intro Sentence: Excellent; the first sentence of the intro was well stated as what you are going to be discussing as well as a very brief overview of the process.

Summary: Good; the intro does not summarize all of the main points. The main points were benefits, ideal foods, process, limitations, regulations, and current uses. The intro only summarizes the first three mentioned. Incorporate limitations, regulations and current uses into the intro.

Context: Good; the intro is short but it does include information such as 50-60 Hz that is not included in the body of the paragraph. This same information could be added to the sub-section of general process

Article

Organization: Good; (This might be more of a preference) The article sections and sub-sections are appropriate, but they appear out of order. I would flow better if the article was organized in the same manner as the intro, which was process, ideal foods then benefits. This would also help the user to get a better sense of the process from a general overview before diving into the specifics.

Content: Good; The information provided does a great job of providing an overview of all portions of the process and why they matter. The content under regulations isn't sufficient enough to warrant a whole section; add more to it or place the same sentence under another section. Under limitations, re-read. Some of the wording doesn't quite make sense (as if some words were mistyped)

Balance: Excellent; The article states the benefits and limitations fairly.

Tone: Excellent; the tone was neutral and appropriate for the formatting

References

Citations: Good; "Inactivation is likely due to the removal of the active metallic groups in the enzymes by the electrical field" There is not source for this sentence and using the words "is likely due" should be removed. If the sources are stating this as the reason then remove "is likely due" otherwise state the other possible reasons that this could be happening (to create a balanced argument that does not appear biased).

Sources: Excellent; the sourced used are good. All of the links worked

Completeness: Excellent; the sources were completely filled out

Existing Article

New sections: Excellent; Not sure if you added some sections already to the Joule heating article, but much of what is in your draft is also present in the article. You do add more ideal products, benefits, current uses, and limitations. The current uses section does have many similarities to the applications section above the food processing portion. May try to reform the page so that all of the information is in one section versus multiple sections

Reorganization: Good; I am assuming that the portion you are redoing is the food processing portion of the article. The article page overall is a bit lengthy and could use some reorganization. The food processing section, is organized the same and there was no noticeable differences beside the addition of current uses.

Gaps: Excellent; all the necessary areas are added. Try to improve the regulations section.

Smaller additions: Good; the additions added more insight into the food processing side of Joule Heating

New Article

Coverage: Excellent; covers the main points that would be necessary to understand the subject

Article Body: Excellent; the article is divided in relevant sections.

Questions

1. The article overall explains the why and how of the process well. Through the different sections the article explains why a certain type of food may be used and why the process would be a better fit. Additionally, the over view of the how the processing works, through the equipment sections, is very useful with the pictures provided.

2. As noted in the portions above, the changes that need to be made are minor critiques that would help with the flow of the article and understanding of the subject. These include reorganization of the sections and sub-sections because they do not match the order that followed in the introduction. Statements that have "is likely due" should not be passed as the sole reason for why something is occurring; "is likely due" implies that there is research that may contradict that statement, but it was never mention. Lastly, the regulations sections is very small and is not necessary regulation. The statement is more of a comment, in which they note that sterilization has not been proven and thus FDA does not allow for this process to be used for sterilization. Regulations (to me) would imply the set boundaries for which the process could operate within. If there is not enough information, then this section should be removed and placed in another section, such as process.

3. The most important thing to do to improve the article is to reorganize. The current wikipedia article is very unorganized; it appears as though sections were just added one after another as a side note.

Review based on Section

Intro

The introduction is good. There is some detail that is not found anywhere else in the article (50-60 Hz). This should be added to another section. The introduction should summarize what you are going to discuss and there are some sections such as limitations, current uses and regulations that are not incorporated into the intro. Note that I think that regulations and current uses can be combined into other sections, thus only limitations would need to be added.

Benefits

Re-writing this section was the good. The current benefits section on the article discusses the benefits in terms of microorganisms. This benefits sections discusses the benefits in a more broad sense, which is more appropriate for this section and wikipedia readers.

Effect on Microorganisms

Great detail added to the article

Effect on Nutrition

This section is great. Rewrite the sentence "Inactivation is likely due to the removal of the active metallic groups in the enzymes by the electrical field". This is a statement, but the "is likely due" makes it appear as though there are conflicting reports. If this a clearly defined reasons then remove the "is likely due" otherwise incorporate the other possible reasons for why enzyme inactivation may occur.

Ideal Food Products 

Appears that you added more ideal foods to the list and chart. The paragraph relates to the limitations section, in which it discusses the conductivity of the food ingredient. Thus, remove the sentences that discuss over processing. Additionally, this section would work well with current uses as this section does discuss foods that are ideal for Ohmic heating. Note that this process also works well with products that are shear sensitive.

Process

 General Process 

This sub-section seems repetitive to the earlier sections of the article that discuss what Joule Heating is. For the general process it would be better if this sub-section walked us through the processing of a general food item.

 Equipment 

I thought that this section was very useful in understanding the concept. Try to incorporate this into general processing sub-section. This would eliminate the need for two sub-sections and it would get a better sense of the flow of the process

 Limitations 

There is a lot of good information added. The intro sentence is not necessary; go straight into the topic. The first sentence creates more of a conversation like feel, which is not wanted in the wikipedia article. It also appears that there is error in the last paragraph: "As a consequence, risk over under- or -over processing can result". I think you meant to use the word "of" not "over".

 Regulations 

This was the same thing that was on the publish page for Joule Heating (assuming that this was added by you). This information is great, but there isn't really enough to warrant a whole section for itself. Try to incorporate this information into the article in another section or try to added more to this section

 Current Uses and Applications 

Great information. Try to incorporate with the ideal foods section. These two sections would make sense if they were next to each other or even combined.

 References List 

The references were all appropriate and the links worked