Talk:Intermediate moisture food

Untitled

"Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food: Draft Guidance for Industry" (PDF). line feed character in |title= at position 31 (help)

Fellows, Fellows, P. (2017). Food processing technology : principles and practice (4th ed ed.). Kent: Woodhead Publishing/Elsevier Science. ISBN 9780081019078. OCLC 960758611.
Rao, D. Narasimha (1997). "Intermediate moisture foods based on meats-a review". Food Reviews International. 13: 519–551.
Saari, Albert (2002). "Preservation of intermediate moisture foods by controlling humidity and inhibition of mold growth".
Torreggiani, Danila (1997). "Osmotic dehydration in fruit and vegetable processing". Food Research International. 26: 59–68.
Forni, E.; Sormani, A.; Scalise S.; Torreggiani D. (1997). "The influence of sugar composition on the colour stability of osmodehydrofrozen intermediate moisture apricots". Food Research International. 30: 87–94.
Barbosa-Canovas, Gustavo; Fontana Jr., Anthony J.; Schmidt, Shelly J.; Labuza Theodore P. (2007). Water Activity in Foods (PDF). IFT Press/Blackwell Publishing. pp. 273–305.
Chirife, Jorge; del Pilar Buera, Maria; Labuza Theodore P. (1996). "Water activity, water glass dynamics, and the control of microbiological growth in foods". Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 36: 465–513.
Chang, S. F.; Huang, T. C.; Pearson, A. M. (1996). "Control of the Dehydration Process in Production of Intermediate-Moisture Meat Products: A Review". Advances in Food and Nutrition Research. 114: 115–161.
Giovanelli, Gabriella; Paradiso, Angela (2002). "Stability of Dried and Intermediate Moisture Tomato Pulp During Storage". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 50: 7277–7281.
Hebbar, H.; Rastogi, N. K.; Subramanian, R. (2008). "Properties of Dried and Intermediate Moisture Honey Products: A Review". International Journal of Food Properties. 11: 804–919.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shamshers58, Ahoang33, Joanna_j. Peer reviewers: Isaacsrach, Bcmich, Briannyakundi335.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isaacs Peer Revision

Grading according to Wiki grading rubric:

1. Lead Section

1. excellent - states article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence
2. good - summarizes most major points, but misses one or more important aspects
3. excellent - all information included is also present in body of the article

2. Article

1. good - purposeful organization, but article does not flow between sections
2. good - covers most of the assigned topic area
3. excellent - article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly
4. excellent - tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience

3. References

1. good - a few statements of some paragraphs have unclear sourcing
2. excellent - most sources are the best available, are appropriate for the discipline/genre
3. excellent - most references include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete

4. Existing article N/A because no current article exists 5. New article

1. good - coverage has some important gaps
2. good - body includes sections, but they aren't hierarchical

Overall the article did a good job of relating IMFs to food processing. I was impressed by the examples provided within each section. I suggest the authors expand topics better. Although they covered a lot of material, it raised some questions of how and why. This would be an improvement because they would better explain complex science terms to a less expert internet audience. I also suggest a formatting change to make it easier to understand what the flow of the article is. This would be an improvement because a lot of information was repeated in sections, so by reformatting, they can mention details early on and not repeat it in later sections. It also sounds like the authors are treating IMF as a method and not a food product like the describe it as in the Lead Section, so they just need to be careful when describing it later in the article.

See pictures for breakdown of comments :)

Isaacsrach (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Brian Nyakundi Peer Review

1. Lead Section Introductory Sentence: Good. The sentence defines IMF. However, i feel like more can be added to the first sentence to give it a full definition. The sentence is short. Maybe think about using a sentence like the one for the definition.

Summary: Good. The summary touches on the important parts of the article.

Context: Excellent. All information included is also present in body of the article

2. Article Organization: Fair. Confusing organization. I think you need to layout your article like it was ready to be posted on Wiki. The layout and organization in the sandbox can be improved. It should look like a regular wiki article.

Content: Good. Covers most of the assigned topic area however, there is no linking for background information.

Balance: Excellent. Article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly

Tone: Excellent. Tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience. A good job was done of just providing the information without being bias toward one side.

3. References Citations: Excellent. Every statement can easily be associated with a supporting reference

Sources: Excellent. Most sources are the best available, are appropriate for the discipline/genre

Completeness: Excellent. Most references include completely filled-out citation template or are otherwise complete

4. NO EXISTING ARTICLE

5. New Article Coverage: Good. Coverage has some important gaps

Article Body: Excellent. Body is divided into relevant, logical sections that follow guidelines for topic

Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article does a great job of explaining IMF and their purpose in the food e=industry. It also does a great job of giving the readers food examples so they can visualize exactly what IMF are. I really liked the advantages and disadvantages sections. I those were informative.

What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would maybe think about adding a little history about IMF. It would help with general intro and background information. You should also link stuff to the article. (I the pictures below i put HL next to items that i though could be hyperlinked). I would also add some pictures of different types of foods and even pictures showing each of the three processing if you can find any.

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? The formatting of the article needs to be improved. It was hard to tell Main sections from sub-sections. I would go through and fix the formatting to make it look like a wiki article.

MORE EDITS IN THE PICTURES BELOW

Beatrice Michael Peer Review

Lead section Introductory sentence: Good- can combine the first two sentences to provide a precise description of the topic

Summary: Excellent- summarizes all the parts covered in the article and about the topic clearly

Context: Excellent- all information that is mentioned in the introduction is elaborated in the body of the article, the definition can be incorporated into the body to flow better

Article Organization: Good- since you already talk about methods for producing IMF products in the introduction, it’s not necessary to mention it again separately as ‘processing methods’. The purpose of producing IMF products can probably be mentioned before the types of drying methods. The title ‘Types of food’ is unclear what you are referring to, is it the products that IMF is usually used on or is it products that need to be IMF products. Also, you could maybe talk about what a humectant is the first time you mention it in a sentence in parentheses so the reader is immediately aware

Content: Good- covers the topic with good detail

Balance: Excellent- Unbiased article that covers all the major sections of IMF and easy for lay audience to understand

Tone: Excellent- Neutral point of view throughout the article

References Citations: Excellent- All the sentences are linked to citations

Sources: Good- one of the citations is a paper from 1981, one from 1992 and some from the early 2000s. Citations 7 & 8 can be combined since they are the same webpage, otherwise all citations are relevant to the topic and within ten years

Completeness: Excellent- all citations are complete

No Existing Article

New article Coverage: Excellent- explores and covers all aspects of the topic to inform the reader about the technology

Article body: Excellent- sections that are relevant to the topic are explained well and will provide the audience with a clear idea of the topic

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

This group did a great job of explaining the key points of IMF while talking about the different methods used for various food products.

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

In the introduction, the first sentence should mirror the definition and then use the current first few sentences (‘Due to its reduced water activity…’) to explain the definition, otherwise, the definition is being repeated twice in the article. The sentence, ‘This form of preservation is achieved by…..’, the second method should say ‘osmotic drying with humectant’ not ‘osmotic pressure’ The sentence ‘a variety of products come under…’ the phrase ‘sugar added commodities’ doesn’t flow with the sentence so change to ‘commodities with added sugar’ or something along those lines The purpose should be moved to the introduction section so readers know its importance and vital contribution to food safety Providing some history as to how IMF started could be interesting and could probably be added after the introduction section Under ‘types of food’, you could include what method/s is/are used to make the product from the 3 processing methods for those that have not been mentioned before like ‘pet food’

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

Improving the organization of the article will make the it more cohesive and easy for the reader to understand the subject.

Bcmich (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A.Prakash review

Include an outline. This is a good overview, but too brief. Provide more explanations for your facts, add some detail.

Introduction Combine sentences, reduce repetition. Are you sure this is a definition, "Definition: Intermediate moisture foods can be defined as products that can be consumed as it is, without rehydration? The second and third paragraph repeat the first paragraph.

Processing Methods should be a new section. Partial drying: This is a method used for beef jerky, so the last sentence may need to be modified to be a bit more specific. Osmotic Drying using a humectant: Please check if the water is replaced by the humectant in the food. Dry Infusion: Don't cite specific studies. What about Formulated intermediate moisture foods?

Purpose I would call this section "theory."

Types of Foods Call this section "Applications" Provide more details about specific products, quality. For example, under Pet Foods, most pet foods are not IMF. Only certain chewy, soft products, usually treats are IMFs. Under Vegetables, Vegetables such as cabbage, potato, horseradish, carrots? Can you provide examples of what cabbage product is an IMF? List some common foods that are consumed as IMF- sun dried tomatoes for example. Avoid repeating the fact that these foods can be stored without refrigeration.

Advantages Please add more details. Do all IMF use preservatives? Which additives can delay the undesirable texture, flavor, and color changes in foods? Why does IMF result in less nutrient loss compared to canning, etc? Explain this sentence, sulfites delay the browning reactions in fruits and vegetables by reacting with carbonyl intermediates. Explain why: Compared to other methods including canning and freezing, intermediate moisture food production is more energy efficient.

Disadvantages Please discuss food safety concerns in more detail. This has received a lot of attention lately.

Reference 2 is from 1981. Can you find a more recent publication? Format references uniformly. 7 and 8 are the same?

Tilly2008 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

@Ahoang33, Shamshers58, and Joanna j: 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 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) 20:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)