User talk:Swimmaaj/sandbox

Hey AJ, just reminding you to keep being awesome Isaacsrach (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suraj's Peer Review
Article assessment as per rubric: 1.	Lead Section (9/10)

a.	Introductory section(Excellent) Provides a clear, concise and accurate statement to the reader.

b.	Summary (Good) Major points were elaborated in short such as usage of food irradiation and its acceptance by large organizations. The second line was hard to follow regarding the transmitting of energy. Radura symbol should have been explained along with the usage of “Product treated with irradiation”.

c.	Context(Excellent) All the points summarized in the lead section were explained in brief with appropriate references later on in the article.

2.	Article (10/10)

a.	Organization(Excellent) Other than few grammatical errors, the article has been organized strategically according to each section followed by sub-sections relating to the section. Sequential flow throughout the article and well-laid transitions.

b.	Content(Excellent) Detailed content on effects, regulation, treatment. Loved the history timeline section at the end.

c.	Balance(Excellent) Unbiased views on all aspects of the article.

d.	Tone(Excellent) Detached and neutral tone which emphasizes on informative delivery

3.	References (7/10)

a.	Citations(Fair) Lack of citations for the following sub-sections: Irradiated food supply, advantages/ concerns of irradiation, indirect effects of irradiation, long-term impacts, packaging.

b.	Sources(Excellent) Credible sources from academic journals, books, peer-reviewed articles.

c.	Completeness(Excellent) References are easily accessible through the information provided.

4.	Existing Article(8/10)

a.	New sections(Good) No new section has been added to the article. However, existing sections have been modified appropriately to add additional points. b.	Re-organization(Excellent) Article organization is impeccable as mentioned earlier in the content. c.	Gaps(Good) Could have done a better job with the incorporation of digital media, graphs, tables d.	Smaller sections(Excellent)

5.	Additional Questions

a.	Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article provides the reader with in-depth detail on the technology and other aspects of it. The timeline and the organization were impressive in my opinion.

b.	What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Addition of media content such as radura symbol. The radura symbol is very important for consumer perspective to know that the product has been treated with irradiation. Moreover, tables and other such creative components were lacking which made the article tedious to peruse.

c.	What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? More references to the previously specified section/sub-section would provide credibility to those sections.

Surajdmeharwade (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Allany's Peer Review
Article assessment as per rubric: 1. Lead Section (8/10) a. Introductory section (Excellent) Very straightforward and worded in a way understandable to most of Wikipedia’s audience. Good introduction for the assignment. b. Summary (Good) It summarizes most of the major points about the topic. It doesn’t summarize or introduce regulations or labeling. c. Context (Good) Overall, most of the content in the lead is in the body. The last sentence seems out of place and the use on medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics seem unnecessary to the topic.

2. Article (10/10) a. Organization(Excellent) The article was well laid out and organized in an efficient way. b. Content (Good) The content was thorough and well organized. I feel like there could be more specific examples on the effect on microorganisms. For instance, what types of pathogens are targeted or an example dose or D value for a specific food and pathogen. c. Balance (Excellent) The article was unbiased. d. Tone (Excellent) The tone was neutral and appropriate.

3. References (7/10) a. Citations (Fair) Many sections lacked proper citations. For example, the Packaging Section needs to properly cite the specific sections of the CFR. At least link to the electronic source via FDA site. b. Sources (Good) Most of the sources used were excellent and in line with what Wikipedia wants. The article used many scientific reviews. Though, there are some specific articles that are single scientific articles and not reviews. This could be a questionable source according to Wikipedia. c. Completeness (Excellent) The sources were complete and easy to trace back.

4. Existing Article(10/10) a. New sections (Excellent) There was new organization by adding “Dose Distribution” and “Sources.” These are good additions. b. Re-organization (Excellent) The decision to remove the “Quality on Minimally Processed Vegetables” was appropriate. The new flow works much better than the existing article. c. Gaps (Excellent) The gaps are filled and the new organization helps. d. Smaller sections (Excellent) The additions were relevant and the deletions were necessary.

5. Summary a. Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article is well organized and the flow works much better now. I was impressed that the information was specific and detailed, but worded in a way that is easily understood by a wide audience. This is not easy and this article does a pretty solid job at it. b. What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The article needs more citations. Some sections are missing proper citations. This aids in proper trace ability and credibility. c. What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? The authors need proper citations.

All any (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

James' Peer Review
1. Lead section 9/10

a. Introductory sentence (excellent) The sentence is very descriptive and to the point

b. Summary (good) Does a great job covering the different kinds of radiation, what it does to the products and how it's regulated with a brief mention of perception. I would personally try to clean up the second sentence as it is lengthy and full of content which makes it a little confusing. Also I think the mention of irradiation for other applications (last sentence) is a little unnecessary since this is the article for Food Irradiation.

c. Context (Excellent) It covers the basics and those topics are all covered in the body.

2. Article (9/10)

a. Organization (Excellent) Great reorganization of the article that help it have more flow as the article goes on. There were many redundant sections or weird organization in the original so this made it much clearer. For the sources it may be good to make subsections for the type of radiation sources for easier navigation and reading.

b. Content (Excellent) Most things are relevant to food irradiation, I see you removed some of the things that were somewhat irrelevant or too specific to be on Wikipedia.

C. Balance (Excellent) Article had many points of view and very unbiased.

D. Tone (Good) Article was for the most part unbiased except the public perception seemed a little persuasive in the tone. Very pro- radiation

'3. References(7/10)

A. Citations (Fair) The packaging section did not have any citations. Other sections were lacking citations but those were most likely previously written, and a more clear reword was made but the original source is unknown. A few paragraphs in Food quality were not cited that may have been new additions not quite sure.

B. Sources (Excellent) All sources seemed relevant and applicable. Many review articles, textbook and other large topic papers.

C. Completeness (Excellent) Just a couple of Date values that were not filled in or incorrectly formatted from the auto-format

4. Existing Article (9.9/10)

A. New Sections (Good) Packaging is a great addition, dose distribution went further into detail. The advantages/concerns of radiation seems a bit redundant as this is mentioned many times across the article and in the effects section. It's a good summary but it seems redundant as I read the article in full. Sources section was a good rewording of the Technology section as well.

B. Re-organization (EXCELLENT) Great reorganization of the article, made it flow much better and be less redundant. Moved many of the misconceptions to the public perception which was great. Also moved the regulation paragraph from lead section to the regulation section.

C. Gaps (Excellent) The packaging and being more thorough in sections helped fill a lot of gaps.

D. Smaller Additions (Excellent) Many rewords or small additions to the sections made it much clearer, and gave more information than before. Some of the rewords made it flow better.

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

I really enjoyed the reorganization and some editing for clarity in the article. I think the article is very awkward in its current state and the reorganization helped it tremendously.

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

See below for my general notes for improvement that I wrote down as I was reading along the article. I think some of the paragraphs written could be more clearly worded, and some other sections removed or cited to back up some claims. Sorry if it is a little unclear where I am referencing.

General Notes for Improvement: 2nd paragraph of packaging, should probably specify that regulation is for the united states. might want to go into regulation sections for that paragraph and the following. The last paragraph of the packaging section might be better presented in a table.

Cost section: this seems unnecessarily reworded, not sure why the order of things was switched around in the first sentence. I don't think including prices is a good practice as that is always subject to change.

Effects of food irradiation: Not sure if it was a rewrite or not but the 2 paragraphs under direct and indirect effects seem redundant.

Chemical changes: redundant paragraphs mentioning 2 ACBS. I do not think giving sources of Furans in other foods is necessary unless it is from irradiated forms of those products. Need a citation for the Well researched that irradiation does not pose greater negative effects at the end of Food quality.

Labeling: The last paragraph addition might need to stipulate the Radura regulation is for the United States.

Public Perception: Good reorganization but I would say some of this part is not a good tone for Wikipedia. Some of the paragraphs seem to be trying to be persuasive or ranting, could be good to remove some of those sentences that may make uncited outlandish claims.

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

Reducing redundancy in the article, reorganizing it ( which you did), and adding more citations to give more credibility to it.

Chronley (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash review
This is quite a comprehensive article. Well done. Please review to combine sections. Its better for Wikipedia articles to not be too long, and this article might be pushing up against the upper limit.

Lead section Reduce repetition.

Uses Remove the first introductory sentence. Use subsections to describe the major uses in a few senetnces for each one. Keep in mind, that irradiation "can" be used, or is "approved" for use, but is not currently being used for all the uses it is approved for.- Done by AJ

Treatment After the first two lead sentences, create subsections for each of the three modalities, and describe them briefly. The shielding is also necessary for x-rays and e-beam to protect personnel during treatment, but the pool is not necessary. Please edit that sentence to make it clear. Indicate what the differences are in dose between low, medium, and high. Radappertization, radicidation and radurization are rarely used nowadays, so I would remove reference to those terms. The effect of irradiation is not like heat pasteurization, deleted that part of the sentence.-Done by AJ

Packaging Move this section towards the end. Explain the fisrt sentence: Food processors and manufactures today struggle with proper packaging materials used for irradiation based processing. Provide reference for section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. I suggest simply referring to the CFR. Put the approved materials in a table. - DONE by AJ

Dosimetry The two introductory sentences should be moved to uses (along with the table), and replaced by these sentences from the next section, "Dosimeters are used to measure dose, and are small components that, when exposed to ionizing radiation, change measurable physical attributes to a degree that can be correlated to the dose received. Measuring dose (dosimetry) involves exposing one or more dosimeters along with the target material."- Done by Priscilla

Sources Combine this section with Treatment and reduce repetition.- Done by AJ

Cost Move this section towards the end.- Done by AJ

Effects of Food Irradiation This should follow the "Treatment" section Remove the introductory sentences. -Done by Brenda

"Direct and indirect effects" The two paragraphs seem to be replicated. -Done by Brenda (combined major concepts into one paragraph)

"Effect on microorganisms" Cite these sentences, The D10-value depends on the microorganism, but is affected by temperature, growth medium, and moisture content. Higher temperatures, simpler growth mediums, and increased moisture content result in decreased D10-values. -Done by Brenda

"Food Quality" Change to "Nutritional and Sensory Quality" -Done by Brenda

The first sentence says that there is minimal effect on food quality. In the second paragraph you describe severe effects of irradiation of carbohydrates and fat. Please clarify. -Done by Brenda

'Is color change due to oxidation of myoglobin common at the doses used?'-Done by Brenda

Not sure what this sentence means, "Micronutrients in food irradiated products express similar effects to those of foods processed with other methods- minimally inactivated." Please rephrase that paragraph, also remove the capital V from vitamins. -Done by Brenda

Avoid reference to individual research papers-such as the one on celery. This section reports contrasting views on sensory and nutritional value- on one hand it syas that there is no effect, then the examples show many negative effects. Review and modify. this entire section. -Done by Brenda

"Chemical Changes" Explain why irradiation does not make food radioactive. -Done by Brenda

Provide the full form of 2ACBs when first used. -Done by Brenda

Please review and reduce repetition. -Done by Brenda

Long term impacts No references used. Please delete this section.-Done by AJ

Indirect effects of irradiation No references used. Please delete this section.-Done by AJ

Advantages/Concerns Minimal references used. Split into two separate sections, add references, and flesh out more. Explain the concern about resistance of bacteria to radiation- not clear.- Done by AJ

Standards & regulations Cite references please! -Done by Brenda (References were not transferred from original article)

Include an image of the Radura symbol. -Done (images and references were not transferred from original article)

Why are some words in capital letters? -Done by Brenda (due to original article formatting)

What do you mean by "Physical attributes associated with common carbohydrates such as pectin, starch, and gums may be affected by irradiation." Will get to by Tuesday, 5/8/18 -BH

Food Safety Not sure what this section is about, it seems it is more about regulations. As such it should be combined within other relevant sections, Standards and Regulations, for example.-Done by Brenda (re-did entire safety and regulations section. Rearranged some paragraphs around)

Edit the Australia section for grammar. -Done by Brenda

Nuclear safety and security Minimal references -References were not transferred from original article. -Done by Brenda

Irradiated food supply Important section, but can you find more recent data than 2010? Combine with Standards and Regulations.

Public Perception Who are the "Several national expert groups and two international expert groups" Minimal references. -References were not transferred from original article. Will get to by Tuesday, 5/8/18 -BH

Move this paragraph to an earlier section, :Irradiated food does not become radioactive, just as an object exposed to light does not start producing light. To induce radiation, the atomic cores (nucleus) of the atoms in the target material must be modified. By only affecting the outermost electrons, foods treated with irradiation are not radioactive as irradiation does not provide enough energy to destabilize the nuclei of the food matrix. The energy used destroy bacteria but does not pose significant changes to the food itself. Additionally, there is no evidence to conclude that the free radicals produced by irradiation of food alter the safety of food products. -Done by Brenda (moved paragraph to "Chemical changes")

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. Some things that still need improvement:
 * Your lead section seems short. Make sure that it summarizes all the major points made in the article
 * This image - File:Irradiated_food_product.png - does not appear to be appropriately licensed. It's currently tagged as "own work", which would only be correct if you created (and own the copyright for) the actual package design. So unless you own the company that makes this product, you can't claim it as your own work.
 * You need to add links to other Wikipedia articles. Topics and terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be linked the first time they appear in the article.
 * 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) 19:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)