User talk:Mariakhalil16/sandbox

Reduce redundancy-several sentences/sections are repeated.

Avoid reporting on specifc studies, especially in the introduction, for example this sentence- Packaging with low O2 (1-5%) or an alternative mix of Ar and CO2 reduced  the ethylene production and preserved the firmness of apple slices resulting to prolonged shelf life under refrigerated conditions.

Check: high levels of O2 (∼80%) are used to reduce oxidation of myoglobin and maintain an attractive bright red color of the meat.

Mention use of MAP for snack foods.

Include references

Review based on rubric

Lead section Introductory sentence- Excellent, Summary- Excellent.

Context- Good, as the last two paragraphs of the lead section have not been elaborated on in the body, explain/link to terms like re-balancing, gas flushing.

Article Organization- Good, as the article does not flow easily. The theory and equipment sections could be moved up in the article

Content, Balance, Tone- Excellent. The topics are well-covered, with a neutral standpoint suitable to the audience.

References Citations- Fair, as there are a few unsourced sections such as Products, Theory, Gases, Effects on microorganisms

Sources- Excellent

Completeness- Good, as the book references link to a website. Consider modifying so as to have just the book referenced without the link.

Existing article New sections- Good, the sections have been grouped together to be more concise. Consider removing the Scientific terms section as it is a redundant section when the terms are abbreviated in the body of the article. Additionally, the terms CAP and VP have not been mentioned in the rest of the article.

Re-organization- Excellent, except for the flow of the article.

Gaps- Good.

Smaller additions- Excellent, the minor edits are useful to the context of the article.

Summary of review

Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article explains the key concepts in a way that is understandable and useful to the audience.

What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Check for high levels of oxygen being used to prevent oxidation and add references. Products section could be expanded on with the use of MAP in combination with other methods of processing such as irradiation, vacuum packaging and that it is majorly used for fresh produce. Explain what respiring products mean. The theory of the concept has not been explained well, summarize before explaining using examples of meat, fruit, etc. Gases section could be more concisely written. Explain what pre-formed and formed packaging materials mean. Equipment section, explain what snorkel machines are or link to them. Could add a limitations section to the article Add images

These changes would help better convey the article with a good flow of topics

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? Go over the grammatical errors and have a second read-through for the article. Good article overall! Cilla-g (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Cilla-g

Arianna's Peer Review
Lead Section:

Introductory Sentence: The introductory sentence does a good job of stating the article topic concisely and clearly. One suggestion for improvement would be to maybe say in parentheses or in another way HOW the internal atmosphere of the packaging is being “modified” or link that section to another Wikipedia article that does discuss it.

Summary: The summary section summarizes all major points in the article. I like that you started off with the “need” for MAP packaging then explained the chemical reactions and the microbiological reactions that take place.

Context: Organization of this section was good with a lead sentence, need, then dives into MAP packaging with a short explanation of what it is. Most information included is also included in the body. I would suggest adding more information in the body on chemical reactions like lipid oxidation as this was touched on in the introduction, but not in the body.

Article:

Organization: For the most part, the article is organized in an organized way. One suggestion would be to have the “products” section at the end of the article instead of the beginning as this is the way most Wikipedia articles list the products. If you take a look at pasteurization for example, you will see how they listed the commonly pasteurized products. I would suggest doing the same for MAP packaged products. Also, there needs to be a clear outline/ “contents” section in all Wikipedia articles and I did not see this in your paper.

Content: The content covered information relevant to the assigned topic. However, more links to relevant articles for background should be included for the final draft. Besides the introduction and in small instances in the “packaging” section and “quality assurance…” section, there are no links to other articles. I recommend definitely linking some of the microorganisms as well as polymers, ethylene production, senescence, noble gasses, some of equipment, etc.

Balance: I think the article does a good job of staying neutral in terms of language. I did not pick up on any bias from the language used from the readers. The article does not seem to favor one side over the other.

Tone: Authors did a good job of staying neutral in their tone throughout the paper, following the guidelines stimulated by Wikipedia.

References:

Citations: There are very few sources used throughout this article. For example, take a look at the “Theory” section and “Gases” section, “Effect on Microorganisms” section, and “Quality assurance of MAP packages” section as none of these have any references listed. Also, the last section of the interdiction needs to have a citation.

Sources: Of the 5 sources used, they are all the appropriate and considerably the best available, appropriate for MAP packaging. However, more sources should be used rather than just these 5. It is good that you used a lot of textbooks and refrained from using self-published material, blog posts, official websites, etc. Maybe consider looking at some review journals/ additional sources that are known for fact-checking and neutrality, such as academic presses, peer-reviewed journals, or international newspapers.

Completeness: The 5 references used include completely filled out citation templates and are otherwise considered complete. Page numbers, authors, journals, textbook and editions are all listed with links that can easily be traced. However, the references section needs to be included at the end of the document after the writing. It was difficult to locate it in the sandbox. Make sure there is a clear section at the end of the article writing with a clear heading section for “References”.

Existing Article:

New Sections: The new information that was added is a better way of organizing the article compared to the original way it was done. Based on how this article was drafted in the sandbox though, it was hard to tell apart the headings form subsections. I think “history” should still exist in the new article, maybe tweak it a bit to make it match the content more instead of just deleting it out. All Wikipedia articles have a history section and I thin it is important to keep it in there. It was a great idea to include sections on “effect on microorganisms” and “Equipment” as these are very important for MAP and understanding the process.

Re-organization: The new organization of the article was much better compared to the original. See my comments/ suggestions above regarding “history” and placement of the “products” section. I also like the way plastic materials was organized better in your version of the article. One suggestion is having sub sections for the different materials with links to relevant examples/ other articles.

Gaps: Key gaps like “effect of microorganism’s” were added which greatly improve the article. However, since in the introduction you mention chemical reactions like lipid oxidation, I suggest having a section or subjection discussion this as well.

Smaller additions: Good additions were added to the relevant sections of the article. Even minor changes like changing headings/ sections improved the article a lot. One suggestion would be to include some pictures to the sections that already existed or the new ones that you added. Maybe in the equipment section? Both yours and the original article seem to be lacking in visuals. I especially like the changed you made to the lead section of the article in your new version as I think it does a better job of explaining the article and relevant information.

New Article:

Coverage: Overall, the new article did a good job of covering all the relevant information on the article. See my comments above on adding in a history section and possibly touching more on lipid oxidation/ other chemical reactions you listed in the introduction.

Article body: The new article seems to be divided into relevant and logical sections that follow the guidelines of the topic. See my comments above on organizing subheadings and headings better in sections like “equipment” and possibly “plastic materials”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckin130 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Eric's Peer Review
1. Lead Section: Introductory Sentence: Excellent. The introductory sentence gives a clear and concise statement of what the article will be about. Summary: Excellent. The lead section briefly describes the main points to be discussed about MAP, such as how it reduces oxidation and microbial growth rates. Perhaps including a sentence or two about packaging materials and equipment could improve the quality of the lead section, since those topics are discussed later in the article. Context: Excellent. All points made in the lead section are discussed later in the article. As mentioned above, adding a couple statements on packaging material and equipment may be good.

2. Article: Organization: Good. All sections in the article are purposeful, however, the fluidity of the paper could be improve through transitional statements at the end of each subsection. Also, the wording in some sentences could be improved such as “Since meat, fish and cheese are non-respiring products needing very low gas permeability films, high gas barrier films are used” Content: Good. All info covered is relative to the topic, however, providing a few more hyperlinks could improve the understanding for a reader whom may not be familiar with the topic or its related information. Areas that may be good to add hyperlinks are the techniques for re-balancing of gases (gas flushing and compensated vacuum). Balance: Excellent. Coverage in the article is balanced with no bias. Tone: Excellent. The tone throughout the article is appropriate for Wikipedia readers.

3. References: Citations: Fair. There are quite a few statements or paragraphs without any links to references. I noticed that many of these are from the original article, but finding references to support these statements will improve quality of the article. Sources: Excellent. Sources are reliable. Some are more than 20 years old, but still provide valid information. Completeness: Excellent. All citations are properly filled out

4. Existing article: New Sections: Excellent. Sections that were added/combined (MAP and EMAP) from the existing article helped to improve the flow the page. Also, the addition of the “Effect on Microorganisms” section was good, as that is an important consideration for why MAP is done. Re-organization: Good. The flow of the article could be improved by adding transitional statements at the end of sections. I would also suggest moving the “Effects on Microorganisms” section higher in the article due to importance. Gaps: Excellent. Key gaps are filled that weren’t mentioned in the existing article, i.e. the effect on microorganisms section. Smaller Additions: Excellent. Additions made clearly improved the quality of the article.

5. New article: Coverage: Excellent. The article discusses the basis for MAP, as well as a variety of related topics such as packaging, equipment, and effect on microorganisms. Article body: Excellent. All sections are relevant to the topic, there aren’t areas where information is repeated.

1.Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I was impressed by the comprehensive coverage of the article. Not only was the process explained and the reasons for using such a process, but much related, and relevant information was also discussed. 2.What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? A lot of statements are missing citations. Adding some will improve the quality of the article. 3.What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? Including citations is the most important thing for the authors to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericdcap5 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash review
Introduction: Good overall summary. Try to make your information more concise. For example, this sentence, " Chemically, oxygen is readily available for oxidation to take place, notably lipid oxidation, which will contribute to the overall deterioration of food." can be changed to "In food, oxygen is readily available for lipid oxidation reactions and also helps maintain high respiration rates of fresh produce, which will contribute to shortened shelf-life." Keeping in mind that it is not only lipid oxidation but other physiological processes in fresh produce such as respiration. Similarly, adjust this sentence as follows, "Therefore, the reduction of oxygen and its replacement with other gases can reduce or delay food spoilage." Scavengers can come in many forms, so change this sentence to "Scavengers may also be used."

Include an outline of sections.

No references provided for Products, Theory, Gases, Micro, etc. Not sure CAP = Controlled atmosphere packaging is used. Its usually Controlled Atmosphere Storage. Please confirm.

Theory and Gases Combine these sections to reduce repetition. Explain why reducing O2 and increasing CO2 delays ripening and reduces respiration rate. This paragraph needs work. Explain what the controversy is. "There has been debate regarding the use of carbon monoxide (CO) in the packaging of red meat. While no risk was found in the use of low levels of CO, the point was raised that CO maintains the color of the meat, and that it can accordingly hide visual evidence of spoilage. The European Food Information Council (EFIC) released a report in 2001 reviewing the data."

Packaging Material The first two paragraphs, and most of the third and fourth can be deleted, not relevant. Also, while you mention what types of films do not work for fresh produce, it is not clear what types of materials are used. No references are provided for the packaging section that are directly relevant.

Effect of Microorganisms No references! Connect these sentences: CO2 has the ability to penetrate bacterial membrane and affect intracellular pH. Lag phase and generation time of spoilage microorganisms are increased resulting in shelf life extension of refrigerated foods. Connect these ideas: Since the growth of spoilage microorganisms are suppressed by MAP, the ability of the pathogens to grow is increased. Why these specific conditions? (maintain temperature below 3 degrees C), lowering water activity (less than 0.92), reducing pH (below 4.5) or addition or preservatives such as nitrite.

Equipment This sentence needs to be rewritten to explain better how this equipment works, "In using form-fill-seal packaging machines, the main function is to place the product in a flexible pouch suitable for its characteristics; these pouches can either be pre-formed or thermoformed; to change the composition of the atmosphere within the package, and to seal it" By Chamber machines, do you mean pouch sealers? This sentence is hanging, "However, snorkel machines do not operate a chamber."

Quality assurance of MAP packages No references! This section sems incompletel. Make sure to include a sentence on

Overall comments: Please read the entire article as a whole and reduce repetition, make it more concise, add relevant references. You should be using a lot more references for the various sections. References 1 and 3 are the same. Tilly2008 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash Final review
History Sources needed for history section. What are "bacon films?" What is EMAP. Provide full form. Move new techniques to later. Theory Include a short discussion on use for of MA for various meat products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilly2008 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. A few things that still need improvement
 * Everything in the article needs to be connected to a supporting citation. References should appear immediately after the statements they support. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and there shouldn’t be any text after the last reference in a paragraph. For example, most of your "History" section is unsourced, and the final paragraph of the "Theory" section lacks sources. The table also needs a source as part of the title.
 * Section headers use sentence capitalization, not title capitalization; only the first word of the title, and proper nouns, should be capitalized.
 * References go after punctuation, not before, and there shouldn't be spaces in front of the references. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)