User talk:Ericdcap5/sandbox

Natalie Tom's Peer Review
Lead Section: 9/10
 * Introductory sentence: EXCELLENT; great introductory sentence; I think maybe you should say 'process' instead of 'processed'
 * Summary: GOOD; introduction paragraph should summarize all major points in the article (according to the rubric), but the intro paragraph right now primarily focuses on enzymes and doesn't mention any limitations.
 * Context: EXCELLENT; all info included in this intro paragraph is also mentioned in the body of the rticle

Article: 8/10
 * Organization: EXCELLENT; the order of each section is placed perfectly where the article flows well
 * Content: EXCELLENT; used a lot of references from books and scientific articles to support information
 * Balance: FAIR; I feel like there may be some unbalance of the benefits vs. limitations of blanching. I think because there is just a separate section just for limitations and no separate section for benefits since the benefits is kind of wrapped into the first paragraph of the 'Uses', it seems like the article almost favors the negative side of blanching. Maybe add a section called 'Benefits'?
 * Tone: EXCELLENT; despite the separate section for limitations, the article seems to have a neutral tone.

References: 9/10
 * Citations: EXCELLENT; a lot of different references were used for each statement
 * Sources: EXCELLENT; sources include a variety of books and scientific articles in which most are within the last 10 years
 * Completeness: GOOD; some of the sources have the 'retrieved date' but not the year the article/book was published.

Existing Article: 10/10
 * New Sections: EXCELLENT; great that you added onto old sections but also added new sections such as 'Blanching Seen in the Food Industry'
 * Re-organization: EXCELLENT; flow of the entire article is smooth and easy to follow
 * Gaps: EXCELLENT; did a great job filling in the gaps of knowledge from the original article
 * Smaller additions: EXCELLENT; elaborating on the 'Uses' section of the article positively contributed to the article

New Article: N/A
 * N/A because added additional information to old Blanching (cooking) article already on Wikipedia

Summary:

'''Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?''' I think the additional sections added such as "Blanching Seen in the Food Industry" is helpful and useful information added to the article.

'''What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' I think maybe adding a new section titles 'Benefits' would help neutralize the article, since there is a huge section on just 'Limitations.'

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? ''The article is well structured and well written. I would just consider adding that new section ('Benefits') so that the article from a glance does not make blanching a negative. Other than that, really great job! ''

Aman's Peer Review
Lead Section

A. Introductory Sentence: Excellent. The introductory sentence was concise and accurately define the topic in a single sentence. To clear any confusion, the lead section should be separated or categorized differently.

B. Summary: Good. This section is bit confusing largely due to disorganization of the body. This section misses few points that is covered in the body but missed in the summary.

C. Context: Good. Fundamental aspect of the topic is covered in the context section but there is some slack of thoroughness. The section, “Introduction to Blanching” lacks flow, and lacking some explanation. This section can be rewritten to have a better flow and thoroughness.

Article

A. Organization: Fair. Organization was bit confusing. The authors could do a better job at categorizing the article. More subsection is helpful. For example, a subsection dedicated to microbial or nutritional benefits can improve the article.

B. Content: Excellent. Authors do provide a thorough and encyclopedic source of information. However, some sections can be more comprehensive.

C. Balance: Fair. Some topic was covered more than others. There is a large disparity between benefits and limitations of blanching. Author dedicates a whole section to limitations while using few sentences to cover the benefits.

D. Tone: Excellent. Tone is neutral.

References

A.Citations: Excellent. Plethora of sources were used, and each statement is backed with a supporting reference.

B.Sources: Excellent, there is a good balance in source variety. Sources include the book, review articles, Journals, and websites.

C.Completeness: Good. Mostly good, Reference # 18, 19, and 20 needs formatting attention. Reference #12 and 13 does not include the page number. There are repeats references, #13 and 17.

Existing Article

A. New Sections: Good. There are sections that are vaguely covered. It would be helpful to include a comprehensive section on benefits itself and impacts on microbes and quality as subsections.

B. Re-organization: Good. There are some minor issues with the flow.

C. Gaps. Excellent. Major gaps missing in the existing articles are covered here.

D. Smaller additions: Excellent. Great deal of explanation is added to the limitation section.

'''1. Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?'''

The article does an excellent job covering the process in the section, “Blanching as seen in the food industry.” There is a thoughtfulness use of details to ensure that the readers have a clear understanding of this section.

'''2. What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

There were areas where there was lack of explanation and missing details. Providing short one or two sentence explanations interferes with the overall flow. There is large disparity in some areas, e.g. limitation and benefits of blanching. Adding few more details can make this article well balanced and drastically improve the ability of non-experts to understand the topic.

3. What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article?

Article can be re-organized for balancing and overall flow.

Josh's Peer Review?
1. Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

-I believe you have a lot of great information that in aggregate, sums blanching up very well. As I read, there was very little wasted space. The citations are well done with reliable sources. It is written in a way that people without a scientific background can understand well.

2. What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I would re-organize the article. There are a lot of information about certain topics spread out over the whole article. The 4 sections are really limiting and there is a lot of misplaced information. You have a lot of great notes but they are just in random locations and don’t seem cohesive.

-I would also create a new introduction section that is short and to the point.

-As I read your introduction, it seemed I jumped straight into the heart of the article as I started to read fact. For example, your 5th paragraph is talking about indicator enzymes and this could be a new section by itself.

-I would make it clear what industries blanching falls under at the very beginning.

-Should link other wikipages within your article.

3. What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article?

-I would mainly re-organize and rewrite an introduction to help a reader better understand blanching. Right off the back I would mention blanching and what industries/field it falls under such as food processing and any other sectors.

Joshua Rustia Peer Review

1. Lead Section

Introductory Sentence: Good

-I would re-write the introduction sentence that states more clearly the scope of the article. I feel like the first sentence seems like the “meat” of the article already.

Summary & Context: Excellent

-I believe this introduction includes excessive background information. -there is a lot random notes (but good ones) that would not fall under the introduction. ---they do not point to any other section later in the article that would expand on the information stated in the introduction.

2. Article

Organization: Fair

-the article is unorganized and can use a more sections to help the reader better understand the information. -

Content: Excellent

-the actual content is very informative and covers blanching very well. Again it is a little confusing trying to piece things together if I had no previous knowledge as it does not read smoothly. -I would try to shorten up some sentences as they can be more concise and to the point.

Balance: Good

-the article could use more balance but does not seem to big on an issue here. -can add more limitations for blanching.

Tone: Good

-there are some sentences that can be re-worded to seem less bias -example: 2nd paragraph, last sentence- comes off as one sided for Blanching

3. References

Citation: Excellent

-The article does a great job citing their information and a great variety.

Sources: Excellent

-The sources cited are fairly new and not outdated. The links work and the articles/books are credible, as well as the journals that some are cited in.

Completeness: Excellent

-most references are complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaRustia (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash Review
Introduction to Blanching You can just re-title the section as Introduction. Introduction should be much more brief. Please edit to remove details such as time/temperature, the effect of POD, Maillard reaction, etc. Changes processed to process. Include peeling as one of the reasons to blanch. This is an important reason for blanching. Can you use another word besides "mediums?" Also, it is important to at least mention blanching at home versus industrial blanching. Refer to the original article and use some of the information there to describe why/how blanching is commonly done at home, then proceed to indicate how industrial blanching is performed on a larger scale for the same reasons plus additional reasons.

Uses should be split into Uses and Technology (or Equipment). Review along with the section on "Blanching as Seen in Food Industry." Suggest that information in this latter section be placed under the "Technology" or "Equipment" section. I suggest including a section "Effect on quality" where you discuss changes in color, texture, nutritional value.

Limitations Not sure blanching leads to hazardous effluents, pollutants for sure, but not necessarily hazardous, at least not to humans. Lest people think of chemical hazards, I suggest removing the word hazardous. Replace "leeching" with "leaching" throughout the article. Can you clarify which vitamins, minerals, and water soluble compounds will diffuse out of the food? Remember also that blanching affects heat sensitive as well as water soluble nutrients. I would delete these two sentences: Vitamin C is a heat-sensitive, water-soluble vitamin which is monitored in the food industry for losses. The percentage loss is used in order to determine the quality of a product post-blanching. Clarify what you mean by "type" and other variables in this sentence: The degree to which compounds diffuse out of food is dependent upon its type, the water to food ratio, the temperature of blanching, and other variables.

References Fix formatting. 3,4,6, 8,9 etc are repeated. In fact several references are repeated. Tilly2008 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. A few things that still could use improvement.
 * Your lead section is too short. It needs to summarize all the major points in the article. You also need some more basic information in your opening. If you take a look at the blanching (cooking) article, you'll see that it begins with

While this might be obvious to you, it may not be obvious to everyone, so you need to start by saying so.
 * I would move the "Uses" section up ahead of the "Technology" section, since it's a bit more foundational.
 * The last sentence in the "technology" section lacks sources.
 * Section headers use sentence capitalization, not title capitalization; only the first word of the title, and proper nouns, should be capitalized. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)