User talk:Huntwc/sandbox

I am adding a section to the page Biofilms, under the title Biofilms in the food industry. I explained how biofilms affect food and the processes in making it. I tried to go into some detail and cover a variety of different sections of the industry. This can use some more work to develop exactly how the biofilms affect each industry. I think this is an acceptable article for wikipedia because I used reliable sources and tried to display the facts as plainly as possible. The organization right now seems a little bundled. Would it be better to separate each section and make small subsection within the overall section?

Peer Review

Good information on the topic and it's written in a way that's not too technical which is good for Wikipedia articles. In terms of splitting up the information I wouldn't suggest new sections per-say, but just separate paragraphs. I would recommend a paragraph on the effects of Biofilms in the food industry, how they form on the food/why food has such prime conditions for it's development, and more on the cleaning products. I would also recommend linking keywords in the article so if people wanted to find out about anything in particular, they could easily check the related Wiki pages. This includes things like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Salmonella, etc. Joeyw526 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi, I will be peer reviewing your addition to the wikipedia page, Biofilm. The section is well written. There is a good amount of sources utilized in this paragraph. I have a few suggestions on how to improve what you contributed.

I was looking at another section in the Biofilm page and I saw Biofilms in Medicine. What I saw that was distinctive were a lot of good quantitative facts embedded in the section. One way to improve your section would be to add some more quantitative facts.
You seemed to go into Salmonella as an example of a biofilm in the food industry. Are there other examples that you could go into?
As for organization, I would suggest to separate that section into paragraphs. Paragraphs could be sorted into subsections such as history, development, examples, etc.
I would add to the section of "See Also". You could add Salmonella to that along with other pages you find necessary.

I hope this helps. Cdpak567 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Pt. 2

The last sentence in the first paragraph is a good stat but it's feels on it's own. Its a good stat for showing why biofilms are something that shouldn't be ignored. I think it would function better in the beginning of the section and relate it to the information better. Something like: food illnesses are a big problem, cite the stat, and here's how biofilms contribute to this stat. I think the structure of the paragraphs could use some work. The second to last sentence of the first paragraph mentions how biofilms can cause foods to be more resistant to disinfectants. This is then referenced again in the beginning of the second paragraph. Then the paragraph talks about all specific foods it affects. I would suggest making the resistant to disinfectants effect its own paragraph since it's really interesting and relevant to current problems in other industries(such as farming).Joeyw526 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]