User talk:Mckin130/sandbox

Great start. Please see some suggested changes to your outline. Please add key references.

I.Brief history of pasteurization

II. Reasons for pasteurization

Products that are commonly pasteurized

II. Equipment

Pasteurization of packaged foods

Pasteurization of non-packaged foods

   Tube heat exchangers
   Plate heat exchangers

Processing conditions for acidic foods

III. Efficacy against pathogenic bacteria

IV. Effect on Food/ enzyme/pathogens

V. Verification Indicators of treatment adequacy VI. Novel Pasteurization

   High pressure processing
   Pulsed electric field
   Microwave volumetric heating

Sous vide covered reasonably well in Wikipedia Tilly2008 (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Brenda's Peer Review/Feedback

Lead Section

Introductory sentence - good (topic of article stated, though not concise/direct). The introductory sentence is very vague and difficult to understand due to the wording of it. By splitting up packaged and non-packaged foods as two different categories, I can sense some confusion by non-food science readers. Also, be more detailed in regards to what pathogens are commonly reduced and how shelf-life is extended. The first sentence is very important and can be take as a hook for readers - need to provide them with much detail from the beginning.

Summary - poor (missing/lacking key ideas). Review class notes, assigned readings, and articles on pasteurization to provide key ideas that we have learned regarding pasteurization.

Context - fair (includes only 1-2 additional sentences of information, yet doesn't provide enough information to determine what the article is about). Good starting history, but needs elaboration (too vague). Lead section overall is vague and could use more pertinent information. Also, there are many pronouns (it, this, these, etc.) that can be elaborated upon. Lastly, in my opinion, the lead section is written as if the readers knew what we have learned throughout the semester as opposed to a lay audience.

Article

Organization - fair (confusing organization and article does not flow between sections). Article should flow nicely from start to finish. There are sections that are started in the history and finished in the effects (milk). Group all pertinent ideas together and try not to skip around on subjects/food products. The history section of milk and alcoholic beverages is too in depth and distracting as it focuses on the history in the 1700's/1900's. Instead, a quick history of pasteurization should be incorporated and the article should focus on the principles of pasteurization. Possibly, include tables or diagrams explaining the process and common equipment of pasteurization and common parameters on multiple food products (not just milk and juice). We spent about two weeks learning about pasteurization and heat exchangers so look back at notes and improve/broaden that section. Definitely add more details regarding the effects of pasteurized foods.

Content - fair (covers some of the assigned topic area). See above comments on organization. Are sections of "Novel pasteurization" and "low moisture foods" pertinent to pasteurization? If so, I would change the section names as both can be associated with different articles. Instead of the linking products that are commonly pasteurized, elaborate on them and their common parameters and reasons for pasteurization. Make sure all the links in the "See also" section are relevant to pasteurization and are not just random food science terms. Make sure to address the suggested changes by Dr. Prakash - those are good to have in the article.

Balance - excellent (article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly). Good, neutral draft. As pasteurization is widely accepted, I cannot imagine negative articles on the subject, but group does a good job on not presenting the information as positive.

Tone - good (becomes informal or chatty in places). Check the tone throughout the draft. Remember, that the article should flow and the reader should not be able to differentiate between authors, which is currently the case. Also, as authors, let the writing reflect that we have a higher education and greater subject knowledge after taking this course.

References

Citations - fair (a few unsourced paragraphs or sections). Read carefully through your entire article to ensure that all ideas/information have been properly cited, even if they are paraphrased. Also, some sentences/paragraphs have unclear sourcing; again, thoroughly double check the article.

Sources - good (Article uses mostly good sources, but includes some lower-quality sources). The class book is a good start, but be sure to incorporate sources such as government websites (FDA/USDA) and books/sources from the library. LL has good resources, books are located on the third floor - take a look at what they have in terms of pasteurization.Try to stay away from journal articles as they may have a positive/negative tone towards the subject matter.

Completeness - fair (Most references are fairly complete, but some are missing something). Take a look at your references - should be a quick fix, there are two or three references that need to be updated. All others (including the few that I checked) are good to go.

Existing Article

New sections - good (sections added cover the topic broadly but are missing some sections). See comments above, good sections were added, but still very broad. Can definitely expand/elaborate more on the products commonly pasteurized.

Re-organizing - good (article organization is improved, but retains flaws). Good job on grouping the history of milk and alcoholic beverages and the principles and practices sections, however the overall flow of the article could be further improved - milk is in the beginning and the end (clump it together instead).

Gaps - fair (some gaps are filled). Good start on incorporating new sections but there are still a few pertinent gaps missing (include different parameters depending on the type of pasteurization).

Smaller additions - fair (content is added in one block, with little regard to article organization). Again, the flow and organization of the article could be improved.

Coverage - good (article has some important gaps). As previously mentioned, go back to the class notes and book reading to get an idea of pertinent information that is missing (remember, Wikipedia is a source for everyone - not just food scientists who know and understand the material).

Article body - good (body includes sections, but they don't follow guidelines or aren't hierarchical). Improvement from the original article, just keep the organization and overall flow of the article in mind.

Summary

Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Good job on improving the original pasteurization article and adding a few sections. Be sure to review everyone's comments/feedback to continue improving the article! :)

What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? As mentioned in my comments above, since WikiPedia is a source for everyone, I would suggest incorporating the basics and information from more sources.

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? In my opinion, adding more figures to further/better explain pasteurization would be of great benefit.

Liliana's peer review

1. Lead Section

1.1 Introductory sentence

Rating: Good

Notes: The topic is stated, but the use of parentheses disrupts the flow of the sentence. I do not think it is necessary to include the details in parentheses in the opening sentence. The introductory sentence needs to be more concise.

1.2 Summary

Rating: Good

Notes: The first paragraph of the summary seems like it fits in the history section better. Instead of saying “It” to start the summary, “Pasteurization” should be used. It is important to show how pasteurization differs from sterilization, but I think sterilization is mentioned too much in the summary. Maybe more of a focus should be in summarizing the pasteurization process in the summary and leave the explanations for the body of the article.

1.3 Context

Rating: Excellent

Notes: It seems that all information in the summary is also in the body of the article.

2. Article

2.1 Organization

Rating: Fair

Notes: The history section does not seem to be in chronological order, thus it is hard to follow. There is a lot about Appert and canning, and it seems to distract from the point. Why is the history section split up into milk and alcoholic beverages? Maybe it would make more sense to keep it all together and focus on working chronologically. I don’t know if the “Low Moisture Foods” section is necessary.

2.2 Content

Rating: Good

Notes: There is a lot of good information! Some of it might be too technical for the Wikipedia audience, though. For example, the effects on nutritional and sensory characteristics sections are very detailed and might be too much for an encyclopedia audience. You might want to check with Dr. Prakash on this one.

2.3 Balance

Rating: Excellent

Notes: The article is unbiased and presents facts. There is no favoring of one opinion over another.

2.4 Tone

Rating: Good.

Notes: Tone is neutral but may be too technical at some points.

3. References

3.1 Citations

Rating: Good

Notes: There are some long paragraphs that only have one citation at the end. Not every statement can easily be associated with a citation.

3.2 Sources

Rating: Excellent

Notes: The sources are relevant and appropriate for the subject.

3.3 Completeness

Rating: Excellent

Notes: I saw a couple of incomplete citations, but for the most part, everything looks complete.

4. Existing article

4.1 New sections

Rating: Excellent

Notes: New sections do not repeat other material.

4.2 Re-organization

Rating: Good

Notes: The organization needs to be improved still.

4.3 Gaps

Rating: Excellent

Notes: There don’t seem to be any gaps in information.

4.4 Smaller additions

Rating: Excellent

Notes: Honestly, it is difficult to determine what was in the article and what is an addition. I can tell that multiple people wrote this article and it is choppy at times.

Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article provides a lot of information on the topic. It is very thorough and detailed.

What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Organization needs to be improved. Also, some of the information may be too technical for this platform. I would suggest focusing more on the principles and process of pasteurization and simplifying the other sections.

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? The article needs to be looked at again regarding structure. The table of contents may be confusing for some users. Sections are too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldawidoff (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash comments

Lead sentence is concise, but not quite accurate. Pasteurization is not applied to canned food. Also, bacteria are microbes, so "bacteria and microbes" should be worded to indicate that spoilage and most pathogenic microorganisms will be destroyed, but not bacterial spores. This is indicated in the third paragraph of the lead. Maybe shorten the lead section to make it more concise, reduce repetition, and summarize the information present in the rest of the article. Please note that the process was not invented by Louis Pasteur, rather the process was named after him. The third paragraph also says that "commercial scale sterilization is not common..." It is very common. I suggest deleting it.

Reorganization- I would take almost of the language from the section "Alcoholic beverages" and place it under history. Remove the heading "Alcoholic beverages." Follow that section with the Milk section. Include this section which was in the original article: Milk is an excellent medium for microbial growth,[14] and when stored at ambient temperature bacteria and other pathogens soon proliferate.[15] The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says improperly handled raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other food-borne disease source, making it one of the world's most dangerous food products.[16][17] Diseases prevented by pasteurization can include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and Q-fever; it also kills the harmful bacteria Salmonella, Listeria, Yersinia, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli O157:H7,[18][19] among others. Pasteurization is the reason for milk's extended shelf life. High-temperature, short-time (HTST) pasteurized milk typically has a refrigerated shelf life of two to three weeks, whereas ultra-pasteurized milk can last much longer, sometimes two to three months. When ultra-heat treatment (UHT) is combined with sterile handling and container technology (such as aseptic packaging), it can even be stored unrefrigerated for up to 9 months.

Principles and Process: Please note that 4.6 is the cut-off for acid foods. Also, saccharomyces is a form of yeast. Reduce repetition. For example, it has been indicated that shelf-life ix extended by several days or weeks, so the last sentence is not necessary.

Equipment section: Batch pasteurization can be performed for packaged or unpackaged foods. For example, a steam jacketed kettle can be used to heat foods to pasteurization temperatures, followed by filling into the final container and cooling. Alternately, packaged foods can be placed in a hot water pasteurizer. I would avoid the mention of a crate, because different types of containers can be used.

Most continuous systems have a heating zone, hold tube, and cooling zone, after which the product is filled into the package. Indicate the plate heat exchangers and tube heat exchangers are commonly used for continuous processing. I would eliminate this, "In a continuous system, being packaged food is conveyed into the heating section and cooling section of the pasteurizer. Unlike liquid foods, solid foods are often pasteurized after being packaged into containers. Other  continuous pasteurizers have a preheat, heating and cooling zone. High velocity water is sprayed to heat product in the heating zone as food is carried by conveyor, till pasteurization temperature is achieved." Specifically mention HTST and explain it briefly. Include a few sentences on UHT processing. Mention the role of the flow diversion valve.

Under the benefits of heat exchangers, include "greater throughput" as one of the benefits. In this section there is over-reliance on the Fellows book, and the second half is missing citations.

Verification: In the first sentence, most pasteurized products are not spoilt in 24-48 hours, but you can suggest that microbiological processes take 24-48 hours which would reduce the time available for distribution and storage. Also delete the sentence on B. tuberculosis, and simply say that destruction of alkaline phosphatase assures destruction of common milk pathogens.

Effects on Nutritional Characteristics: Edit the first sentence as follows: Pasteurization, because of its mild heat treatment, increases the shelf-life by a few days or weeks.

I agree with removing the detailed section on Milk nutrition, maybe just some key points similar to the Juices section.

Tilly2008 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

@Mckin130, JoshuaRustia, and T. Joele: Nice work on your draft. Some fairly small things that still need improvement:

• Your lead section is too short. It needs to summarize all the major points 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) 18:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)