User talk:Mille504/sandbox

Samantha's Peer Review

1) Lead Section

Introductory Sentence - Excellent: The article topic is given as well as an accurate definition. Maybe you can change it to Joule heating (ohmic heating, etc.) since that is your article title.

Summary - Good: The lead section gives a good definition and process of ohmic heating, but it does not summarize all main points. A sentence on the types of food products, effect on microbes, and effect on nutrition can be added.

Context - Good: The last sentence about decreasing deterioration and over-processing can also be discussed in the benefits section.

2) Article

Organization - Excellent: Clear headings and subheadings are outlined. Since the section called benefits has subheadings (microorganisms & nutrition), maybe this could be done with the limitations section as well. This can include cold spots and fouling.

Content - Excellent: Great information and links to other Wikipedia articles.

Balance - Excellent: The article does a good job remaining impartial. It gives benefits as well as limitations to the process.

Tone - Excellent: Tone is neutral and anything that may be confusing to an encyclopedia audience is hyperlinked.

3) References

Citations - Good: Some citations can be added in the ideal food products section. After looking at the original article, there are sources in this section. I'm not sure if it's possible to find a reference for the regulation section or if there just isn't information on it.

Sources - Excellent: Good sources from journals and textbooks.

Completeness - Excellent: All sources seem complete. Just fix reference 7. It says "replacement character in |title= at position 61".

4) Existing Article

New Sections - Excellent: The original article lacked information on the food processing side of joule heating.

Re-Organization - Good: I'm assuming that the added section will go near the bottom of joule heating after all of the physics things. It might be nice to discuss the process and types of foods after the introduction before jumping into benefits.

Gaps - Excellent: The key gaps are filled.

Smaller Additions - Excellent: The additions were good. However, it's hard to figure out what was changed from the existing article besides benefits and more on the applications.

5) Final Questions 1) Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? -The article does a good job presenting an impartial view of joule heating. It gives many examples of foods that can be processed using this method. 2) What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -I would consider changing the organizational structure of the article. Moving up the process and ideal food products may be useful before discussing the benefits and limitations. Figure 1 is useful in looking at the process, but when discussing equipment, maybe including the generator and electrode gap would be useful. Also, for applications, does ohmic thawing only work with shrimp blocks? And does the inactivation of spores and enzymes only apply to the fish cake and juices? 3) What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? -I think the article looks pretty good. I would just suggest improving the organization of the article to make it easier for the reader.

Ana's peer review

Lead: •Introductory sentence: Good summary of the information in the article. However, since the method has not been approved for commercial sterilization, I think instead of writing that is a HTST method for sterilization, it should be HTST method for pasteurization. •Summary: The article did a good summary of what the article is about. The group can also add a brief statement on the effect on microorganisms and nutrition. •Context: Excellent. All information in the introduction is also present in the body of the article. As mentioned above, group can also add a brief statement on the effect on microorganisms and nutrition.

Article: •Organization: Good organization of ideas. One suggestion though to improve the flow of the article is to swap the order of some sections: discuss “current uses and applications” after equipment, followed by benefits, limitations and regulations. •Content: The group did an excellent job on covering the relevant information about the topic. •Balance and Tone: The overall balance and tone of the article are mostly good. Some of the statements however can still be improved. For example, instead of writing “Ohmic heating presents a large number of actual benefits including…”, the authors can write “Benefits of Ohmic heating includes …".

References: •Citations: Excellent citation throughout the whole article. Just missed some/got removed during transfer as mentioned by the group. •Sources: Excellent amount of references from books and review articles •Completeness: Mostly good but some references (#7 and 10) have repeated or missing information.

Existing article •New sections: I liked that the group chose to expand the discussion on the application of Joule heating/Ohmic heating in food processing. The current article only slightly touched on the application of the method in food processing. Will the group start another article? If yes, it will be good to name the article "Ohmic Heating in Food Processing" instead of just "Ohmic Heating." •Re-organization: Good organization of ideas but can still be improved as mentioned above (see comments on “Article-organization” •Gaps: Addition of sections “effect on microorganisms,” “effect on nutrition” and “current uses and applications” are excellent improvement to the article. •Smaller additions: Mostly excellent addition to existing information on sections for benefits and limitation. Maybe for the limitations, when fouling problem is discussed, a closing statement can be added to tie in with the information in the Benefits section. For instance, a similar statement like, “Fouling is observed but of less extent compared to other heating methods such as …” can be added.

Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? As mentioned above, I liked that the group chose to discuss more about the application of Ohmic heating in food processing. Also, the group did a good job in adding relevant information to the topic. What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? As commented above, since the method has not been approved for commercial sterilization, the authors should write that Ohmic heating is a HTST method for pasteurization. Flow of the article can also be improved by changing the orders of some sections. Also, adding the statement about the fouling observed in the method as noted in my comments in "Existing article: smaller additions" will make the section consistent with the benefits section. What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? Reordering of some sections will greatly improve the flow of ideas. Overall, the authors did an excellent job adding relevant information about the Ohmic heating's application in food processing!Estra150 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

John Butz Peer Review

Lead Section

Intro Sentence: Excellent; the first sentence of the intro was well stated as what you are going to be discussing as well as a very brief overview of the process.

Summary: Good; the intro does not summarize all of the main points. The main points were benefits, ideal foods, process, limitations, regulations, and current uses. The intro only summarizes the first three mentioned. Incorporate limitations, regulations and current uses into the intro.

Context: Good; the intro is short but it does include information such as 50-60 Hz that is not included in the body of the paragraph. This same information could be added to the sub-section of general process

Article

Organization: Good; (This might be more of a preference) The article sections and sub-sections are appropriate, but they appear out of order. I would flow better if the article was organized in the same manner as the intro, which was process, ideal foods then benefits. This would also help the user to get a better sense of the process from a general overview before diving into the specifics.

Content: Good; The information provided does a great job of providing an overview of all portions of the process and why they matter. The content under regulations isn't sufficient enough to warrant a whole section; add more to it or place the same sentence under another section. Under limitations, re-read. Some of the wording doesn't quite make sense (as if some words were mistyped)

Balance: Excellent; The article states the benefits and limitations fairly.

Tone: Excellent; the tone was neutral and appropriate for the formatting

References

Citations: Good; "Inactivation is likely due to the removal of the active metallic groups in the enzymes by the electrical field" There is not source for this sentence and using the words "is likely due" should be removed. If the sources are stating this as the reason then remove "is likely due" otherwise state the other possible reasons that this could be happening (to create a balanced argument that does not appear biased).

Sources: Excellent; the sourced used are good. All of the links worked

Completeness: Excellent; the sources were completely filled out

Existing Article

New sections: Excellent; Not sure if you added some sections already to the Joule heating article, but much of what is in your draft is also present in the article. You do add more ideal products, benefits, current uses, and limitations. The current uses section does have many similarities to the applications section above the food processing portion. May try to reform the page so that all of the information is in one section versus multiple sections

Reorganization: Good; I am assuming that the portion you are redoing is the food processing portion of the article. The article page overall is a bit lengthy and could use some reorganization. The food processing section, is organized the same and there was no noticeable differences beside the addition of current uses.

Gaps: Excellent; all the necessary areas are added. Try to improve the regulations section.

Smaller additions: Good; the additions added more insight into the food processing side of Joule Heating

New Article

Coverage: Excellent; covers the main points that would be necessary to understand the subject

Article Body: Excellent; the article is divided in relevant sections.

Questions

1. The article overall explains the why and how of the process well. Through the different sections the article explains why a certain type of food may be used and why the process would be a better fit. Additionally, the over view of the how the processing works, through the equipment sections, is very useful with the pictures provided.

2. As noted in the portions above, the changes that need to be made are minor critiques that would help with the flow of the article and understanding of the subject. These include reorganization of the sections and sub-sections because they do not match the order that followed in the introduction. Statements that have "is likely due" should not be passed as the sole reason for why something is occurring; "is likely due" implies that there is research that may contradict that statement, but it was never mention. Lastly, the regulations sections is very small and is not necessary regulation. The statement is more of a comment, in which they note that sterilization has not been proven and thus FDA does not allow for this process to be used for sterilization. Regulations (to me) would imply the set boundaries for which the process could operate within. If there is not enough information, then this section should be removed and placed in another section, such as process.

3. The most important thing to do to improve the article is to reorganize. The current wikipedia article is very unorganized; it appears as though sections were just added one after another as a side note.

Review based on Section

Intro

The introduction is good. There is some detail that is not found anywhere else in the article (50-60 Hz). This should be added to another section. The introduction should summarize what you are going to discuss and there are some sections such as limitations, current uses and regulations that are not incorporated into the intro. Note that I think that regulations and current uses can be combined into other sections, thus only limitations would need to be added.

Benefits

Re-writing this section was the good. The current benefits section on the article discusses the benefits in terms of microorganisms. This benefits sections discusses the benefits in a more broad sense, which is more appropriate for this section and wikipedia readers.

Effect on Microorganisms

Great detail added to the article

Effect on Nutrition

This section is great. Rewrite the sentence "Inactivation is likely due to the removal of the active metallic groups in the enzymes by the electrical field". This is a statement, but the "is likely due" makes it appear as though there are conflicting reports. If this a clearly defined reasons then remove the "is likely due" otherwise incorporate the other possible reasons for why enzyme inactivation may occur.

Ideal Food Products

Appears that you added more ideal foods to the list and chart. The paragraph relates to the limitations section, in which it discusses the conductivity of the food ingredient. Thus, remove the sentences that discuss over processing. Additionally, this section would work well with current uses as this section does discuss foods that are ideal for Ohmic heating. Note that this process also works well with products that are shear sensitive.

Process

General Process

This sub-section seems repetitive to the earlier sections of the article that discuss what Joule Heating is. For the general process it would be better if this sub-section walked us through the processing of a general food item.

Equipment

I thought that this section was very useful in understanding the concept. Try to incorporate this into general processing sub-section. This would eliminate the need for two sub-sections and it would get a better sense of the flow of the process

Limitations

There is a lot of good information added. The intro sentence is not necessary; go straight into the topic. The first sentence creates more of a conversation like feel, which is not wanted in the wikipedia article. It also appears that there is error in the last paragraph: "As a consequence, risk over under- or -over processing can result". I think you meant to use the word "of" not "over".

Regulations

This was the same thing that was on the publish page for Joule Heating (assuming that this was added by you). This information is great, but there isn't really enough to warrant a whole section for itself. Try to incorporate this information into the article in another section or try to added more to this section

Current Uses and Applications

Great information. Try to incorporate with the ideal foods section. These two sections would make sense if they were next to each other or even combined.

References List

The references were all appropriate and the links worked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butz101 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A.Prakash review

References should be placed immediately after the sentence which they inform, not at the end of the paragraph.

Title Joule Heating or Ohmic Heating?

Introduction I suggest that you switch the order of the first two sentences, so its clear in the first sentence that it is a form of electrical heating. Something along the lines of: Passage of electrical current through food generates heat due to resistance to flow of current. It is a volumetric form of heating.... Is this sentence accurate? Electrical energy is linearly translated to thermal energy as electrical conductivity increases.

Benefits Move this section to later. A very important benefit is that it is a form of volumetric heating, in which heat need not be transferred from a heating medium, but it is generated internally. Ohmic heating offers higher energy efficiency and lower capital costs compared to what? Reduce repetition in this paragraph.

Effect on Nutrition What is protein agglutination? Also, clarify this sentence: The nutritional value of the food is maintained in the suspension liquid, so no loss will be observed if the liquid is consumed.

Ideal Food Products Pumpable products are usually liquids. I would think that given the advantages of heating particulates, that the ideal products would be viscous liquids with particulates. Please check. Capitalize all the products What do you mean by "They" in this sentence: They are highly dependent on salt, water, and fat content due to their thermal conductivity and resistance factors. The table with electrical conductivities is good, but explain the context in your article. Explain that as temperature increases, electrical conductivity increases, and rate of heating increases.

Process Move this section up, right after Introduction. In fact, include a section called "Theory." Provide the equation that shows the relationship between current and resistance, the product and process factors that affect heating rate, etc. Point out that the rate of ohmic heating is directly proportional to the square of electric field strength and electrical conductivity. Follow this with the Process section, but include more detail on the process, equipment, as well as the entire ohmic heating system.

Limitations Please check the theory of ohmic heating and make requisite edits, especially the first paragraph. Also, review this sentence in the second paragraph:Otherwise, food material with higher density will be conducive to slower ohmic heating. There are several incomplete sentences in this paragraph, please edit.

Regulations No references. I don't believe that there is insufficient data on conductivities, I think its more about modeling change in conductivity with temperature. Please review and edit this section.

Current Uses If the FDA has not approved ohmic heating for commercial use, then there could not be any current uses and applications. These are potential applications. Table 2 is interesting, but can you ohmically process solid foods? Also why cauliflower florets specifically? Remove capital letters from some of the food examples in the third column.

References Good references, but please format uniformly, indicate year of publication please. You can use this reference as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhvE5f-KwE Tilly2008 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

@Mille504, Isaacsrach, and Apheera: Nice work on your draft. I think the best way to move forward here is to create a separate article entitled something like Joule heating (food processing) or [[Joule heating in food processing. If you that that, you should create a lead that's specific to the application of joule heating in food processing, and include a version of that lead in the original article. To create a link to your article, you should paste the following wikicode into the relevant section of the main article: {{main|Joule heating (food processing)}} (assuming you went with that article title). This will produce the following link

Main article: Joule heating (food processing)

Some things in your draft that still need improving

• As I mentioned, you need a lead section that summarizes all the major points in your article
• 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.
• References go after punctuation, not before. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)