User talk:Jane Sawyer/sandbox

Two thoughts occur to me after reading your section: One is a simple thing "25% of all disease outbreaks from food/ water during the time before World War II in the U.S.[1]" There's just an extra space in the food/water sentence, easy mistake to make. Secondly, maybe you could talk about U.S. states that allow raw milk production/consumption like good ol' WI? Other than that, this looks like a great contribution!

Blesisp (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Parkinson's Disease Groups Peer Review
This is a great first draft for your Raw Milk Wikipage, there are just a few things that you should keep in mind moving forward! First, we think that including specific facts about incidence or prevalence of raw milk food poisoning with the appropriate sources would be a good start. Moreover, including a fact about the annual incidence of raw milk poisoning in the United States, would be a good example. Would this be different than the outbreaks that you talk about in the third paragraph? Since this is a unique topic, “outbreaks” might just fine. If so, I would perhaps talk about specific examples of some of the outbreaks! Also, in the fourth paragraph, “Outbreaks have been occurred from consuming food products made with raw milk” should have a source to back it up. And then at the end when you talk about previous outbreaks or incidence you should back that up with the appropriate source too. From those specific outbreaks you could talk about some mortality rates too.

Lastly, the final paragraph about the mouse study seems out of place. As you have it right now, you go from talking about Gouda Cheese/Raw Milk related outbreaks to the mice study. We would suggest transitioning by talking about how mice are related to the epidemiology and perhaps summarizing the study results briefer, just to keep that neutral tone by not talking about a single study’s findings. But overall, this is a great draft! There are just a few clarifications pertaining to the epidemiology of your topic that you should consider.JRatanawong

The first aspect that stood out to me was paragraphs three and four use the same source but talk about distinctly different things. The third paragraph discusses pathogens in milk and how it affects vulnerable populations, while the next paragraph specifically discusses persistence of E.coli in Gouda Cheese. I would recommend specifically citing the third paragraph. My only other recommendation would be to more effectively tie in your paragraph about rats and milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfogal=2018 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Orion's Critique
Grammatic/Structure Critiques (Copied from Sandbox):

'''Before purified milk was adopted in the US, public health officials were concerned with cow milk transmission of bovine tuberculosis to human. It is estimated that 10% of all tuberculosis cases in humans is attributed to milk consumption.[1] With the use of modern pasteurization and sanitation practices milk account for less than 1% of reported outbreaks from food and water consumption. As comparison, milk borne outbreaks were associated with 25% of all disease outbreaks from food/water during the time before World War II in the U.S.[1]'''

Between 2007 and 2016 there was a burden of 144 outbreaks connected to raw milk consumption. Exposure to raw milk poses a threat of infection, including Campylobacter (bacterial), Cryptosporidium (parasite), E. coli (bacterial), Listeria (bacterial), and Salmonella (bacterial). Because of the vulnerability of developing and degrading immune systems, children, the elderly, and those who are immunocompromised are at a heightened risk of experiencing infection from raw milk consumption.

Outbreaks have occurred from consuming food products made with raw milk. One food item that has commonly used raw milk in its production in the past is Gouda cheese. Since Gouda cheese has a 60-day aging period prior to its consumption, it has previously been hypothesized that no bacteria would persist through that time. A study published in the Journal of Food Protection showed E. coli 0157:H7 has the ability to persist through the aging period of Gouda cheese. The studies evidence included three different outbreaks prior to 2013 associated with this specific strain of E. coli in Gouda cheese.[2]

A mouse study aimed at evaluating the difference in nutritional values between raw and pasteurized milk. Mice were separated into two groups a pasteurized milk group and a raw milk group. Each group consisted of breeding pairs. The conclusion of the study measured no significant difference in weights of pasteurized to raw milk consuming mices. Birth Weights were measured from each group and showed no significant difference in the mouse group. Overall the study showed no measurable significant difference in nutritional value in growth and fertility of mice. [3]

'''Comments (In Bold and Order of Appearance): •	'''I would consider rephrasing. Your lead section is strong, and I would almost consider mashing the first and second paragraph together.'''

•	'''To use burden in this context I would add more description to its context (endemic levels and/or talk about how it is in fact a burden). •	'''I'm not sure you should include the comments in parentheses. The infectious agents are good, I just think the type of agent in parentheses throws off the flow. •	'''Double check if this would be considered a secondary source. I believe journal and study publications are considered primary sources of information and I’m not sure if Dr. Kantor will accept it.

Overall Critique- I think you all did a good job balancing your article thus far. You opening paragraph does a nice job introducing the epidemiology of the topic and provides a good transition into some of the bigger picture details. Specifically, your sentence “estimated 10 % of all tuberculosis cases in humans being attributed to milk consumption” is solid. The most important thing moving forward I think for this article draft is to make sure your phrasing and structure is consistent throughout the piece and to ensure the vocab is neutral and easy enough to understand without much context or prior understand of epidemiology. You have a good start, keep to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionAllgaier (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)