User talk:Briannyakundi335/sandbox

Andrew Hoang's Peer Review of Aseptic Processing

Lead Section 9/10

Introductory Sentence: Excellent. The article states the topic concisely and uses easy to understand terms.

Summary: Excellent. The major points are outlined, but it is much too long for a summary. My suggestion is to shorten the sections, especially the paragraphs after the "limitations" bullet points. A bulk of the "methods" paragraph can be explained in the "equipment and systems" section and the bulk of the last paragraph in the lead can be written out in "regulation" section.

Context: Excellent. Based on the rubric, I would suggest adding a sentence or two about the history of aseptic process. The rubric suggests to include the important points in the article

Article 8/10

Organization: Excellent. Organization is great, the headings are clear and the article is well written. The table in the "packaging" section is well done. The article should be reviewed overall for grammar and flow issues. Remove the tabs in the "safety section" because the rest of the article does not start the paragraphs like that.

Content: Good. Most main points of aseptic processing are outlined in this article. I would suggest adding a section about common foods that are aseptically processed. The history section/safety section could be improved by talking about the specific microbes being controlled for. Also elaborate about the time needed for aseptic processing. Great job at putting links to certain topics and pages. I would suggest also linking "retort" also.

Balance: Excellent. The article does a good job in balancing the topics evenly. As stated above, the "safety" section can be elaborated with information about specific microbes (C. bot).

Tone: Excellent. The tone is neutral and there are no apparent biases.

References 10/10

Citations: Excellent. Statements and information are supported with supporting evidence

Sources: Excellent. Article contains pertinent sources that are reputable to the topic

Completeness: Excellent. The references are filled out and are complete

Existing Article 10/10

New Sections: Excellent. The new material adds good technical information to the article. Great job in fleshing out the article to be more comprehensive

Re-organization: Excellent. Good job in rewriting the lead/introduction and removing/changing the material that was loosely related. Great job in actually writing out the systems and processing methods rather than just linking it (like how it is in the current article). The "common uses" section in the current article could be expanded/rewritten. As stated above, it would be beneficial to add food products that are typically or currently aseptically processed.

Gaps: Excellent. The article had many gaps that were addressed in your drafted article.

Smaller additions: Excellent. Relevant additions were made all over the current article which greatly improved it

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

The article is well written, provides technical information and is a major improvement from the current article on wikipedia. I liked that a clear and concise table was added and the concepts that were just links in the current article were expanded upon.

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

Add information about the time needed for the process. Also information about the microbes of concern/what is being controlled for would be beneficial. Expand on "spores" and "spoilage organisms". The lead/introduction is a bit long and content from that section can be moved to later parts of the article (see notes above). Add links to certain topics such as "retort"

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

An overall review for grammar and flow will also improve the article.

Aseptic Processing Review 2

Lead Section

Introductory Sentence: Great definition used to explain what aseptic processing is

Summary: The summary is too long. Should consider creating a new section which includes methodology (direct and indirect) and steps, and an advantages/disadvantages section which would shorten the summary to include the first 2 paragraphs. Also, briefly include mention of history (1-2 sentences), safety/shelf-life (1 sentence), etc. to round out the lead section (based on Wiki Assignment Assessment rubric).

Context: Because of excess information within the lead section, not all the information is referenced in the body of the article. If the lead section is shortened with the addition of brief topics included, the introduction will better transition to the body of the article

Article

Organization: Article is well organized with appropriate headings. The inclusion of numbered outlines and the table within the section(s) are helpful to the flow of the article.

Content: Includes a lot of relevant information to aseptic processing, however, examples of products that undergo aseptic processing would be beneficial, in addition to the packaging materials. In addition to adding an advantages/disadvantages section (as stated previously), consider also including and elaborating on how the quality of the product is affected and how it is maintained with this process. Explain a little more about difference between pasteurization and sterilization and which is achieved with aseptic processing in the “Safety and Shelf Life” section. Also, include why it is important that the packaging material is also sterilized before being filled with sterilized product in the "Packaging Material" Section.

Balance: Article is well balanced apart from the additions mentioned previously.

Tone: The tone of the article is neutral and unbiased

References

Citations: Properly used throughout the article

Sources: Some sources appear to be outdated (e.g. 1995, 1993) and should consider updating those references

Completeness: Bibliography is complete in its reference formatting

Existing Article

New Sections: The new sections added provide additional, relevant information that adds depth to the existing article and increased knowledge of the reader in what aseptic processing is.

Re-organization: The article is well organized with its new additions

Gaps: As stated previously, the addition of the new sections to shorten the lead section will help with the flow and filling in the gaps seen in the body of the article (e.g. advantages/disadvantages, methodology, etc.)

Smaller Additions: Additional information added relates to the article well

Summary

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

The article does well in filling in the gaps which the current article is missing, apart from a few minor areas that need further explanation. I was impressed with the fact the authors chose to remove the “See Also” section and incorporated into the article the relevant topics listed in that section, expanded on them briefly and then they were related back to aseptic processing.

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

As stated previously, the shortening of the lead section with also the inclusion of brief mentioning of the topics within the body of the article and the addition of further headlines/sections will help further improve the flow of the article.

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

The most important thing would be to break up the lead section and include examples of the products which go through aseptic processing so that the reader can better identify what products they buy undergo aseptic processing.

CL116 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)CL116

Article Review by SMiller

1. Lead Section 8/10 Introductory Sentence: Good. A good overall generalization of the process. The verbiage can be more specific (suggestion: …food, pharmaceuticals and their associated packaging material are commercially sterilized then sealed to lengthen shelf life and reduce microbial spoilage).

Summary: Excellent. All major steps are outlined indicating advantages and limitations. (suggestion: under advantages, identify specific nutritional loss factors such as macronutrients, vits/mins. Under limitations, identify cost comparison as to why it’s expensive or not cost efficient.)

Context: Good. Intro section is very in-depth. Potentially overwhelming for a lay reader. Consider condensing some sentences after the limitations sections to summarize the main points to include later in the body. This sentence needs a citation: Packaging equipment and packaging materials are sterilized with various medium or combination of mediums (i.e., saturated steam, superheated steam, hydrogen peroxide and heat and other treatments). Further, the outlined industry preventative control factors if commercial sterility is not achieved should be cited from the FDA website.

2. Article 8/10 Organization: Excellent. Smooth transitions. Would recommend relocating Safety and Shelf life section. For a transition, it can arguably be a more logical transition to discuss safety before the FDA regulations. Content: Good. Team does a great job at addressing all touch points of process, packaging, and FDA guidelines. Sentences could be briefer. Use of filler words such as “to achieve this…There are a lot of…There are a range of…” can be removed, and some sentences can be combined. Please revisit the Packaging Material section to see which sentences can be combined. Balance: Excellent. All sections are evenly tended to for information. One section does not outshine the other. Good Job! Tone: Excellent. Unbiased and 3rd person. Filler words and phrases take away from the context (see comment above).

3. References 10/10 Citations: Excellent. Citations are properly used in the appropriate places. See earlier comment for FDA citation in introduction. Sources: Excellent. Links are working and applicable to the topic (attn to link 1 date values). A range of texts, books, articles and guidance documents. Very nicely done. Completeness: Excellent. References are filled out following the citation template.

4. Existing Article 10/10 New sections: Excellent. A great job of focusing the article on aseptic processing in food to differentiate from the pharmaceutical products. Reorganization: Excellent. See earlier comment about moving the Safety section before FDA regulations, but other than that specific critique, the article transitions well from one section to the next. Gaps: Identify examples of food that are aseptically processed (milk) Smaller additions: Try to link more of the key words to other articles found on Wikipedia.

Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Overall, the team had great improvements to the original article. The depth of information is impressive and extensive.

What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Please focus on shortening sentences, duplicating statements and combining appropriate information as the article could be condensed.

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? See comment above. Wikipedia articles are for a lay audience so the descriptions are easily understood for non-scientists. However, the attention span of a reader using Wikipedia for quick summaries of a topic is short. Try and keep the article informative, but short, sweet and to the point. Great job to the team! Mille504 (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash review

Please provide an outline. [Fixed - M] The sections need to be re-organized to flow better.

Somewhere (including the lead section) you should talk about the types of food (pumpable, low viscosity generally, maybe with small particulates) and provide examples. [Fixed - N]

Lead section Needs to summarize the contents of the article. Please rewrite with this in mind. Keep the original sentence. Aseptic processing is the process by which a sterile (aseptic) product (typically food or pharmaceutical) is packaged in a sterile container in a way that maintains sterility. No need to mention Direct and Indirect methods in the introduction, that can be explained later. [Fixed - M]

Advantages and Limitations Move this section closer to the end of the article [Fixed - M]. This section needs to be fleshed out rather than just bullet points to show the clear advantages of aseptic processing for food as compared to other forms of heat processing. Same with the limitations or disadvantages.

Methodology Rename this section to "Process" or "Technology" [Fixed, Moved - M] Direct and indirect heating are not "methods", rather these are direct and indirect forms of heat transfer. Please rewrite with these in mind. [Fixed - M]'[Fixed - B]' For steam injection-is this for viscous or low viscosity foods? [Fixed - B] Need to discuss more about the indirect forms, at least link these to other Wikipedia articles, and mention their key advantages and disadvantages. [Fixed - B]

History End with current situation [Fixed - M]

Equipment and Systems Needs to be combined with Methodology section [Fixed - M], and entire section rewritten.[Fixed - B]

Should have a section on Effect on Food Quality. [Fixed - N]

Reference list: Please format uniformly. Check where Reference 2 was used, and if it is relevant. [Fixed - B]

Packaging Material Explain laminated materials and role of the various layers in the laminate. [Fixed - N] In the discussion about use of plastics, what kind of plastics are used for aseptic products? [Fixed - N]

Selection of aseptic containers What factors influence selection of containers? [Fixed - N]

Sterilization of aseptic packaging material Needs to be combined with Methodology section [Fixed - B]. This sentence is not always the case: These containers are sterilized to kill microorganisms on the container after it has been made and transported and prior to filling. Often times the materials are sterilized before the package has been formed.[Fixed - B]

FDA Inspection and Regulation for Aseptic Processing Provide a link to the Better Process Control Schools. [Fixed - M] Also, I believe that aseptic products need to be incubated and tested before release into distribution. Please look into this. [Fixed - N] Tilly2008 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

@Briannyakundi335, NatGtom, and Mmill016: Nice work on your draft. Some things that still need improvement:

• 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 (and the article title itself) 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 should not have a space before them. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)