Talk:Phytophthora megakarya

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): Jb347513.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

This article has a nice start to the organization of content, but much of it needs improvement. The information being presented is correct, but does not delve into detail as much as it should. Instead of explaining the content in detail, it provides more of an overview. For example, the introduction is written in general terms and doesn’t once mention that Phytophthora megakarya is an oomycete. It simply calls it a “plant pathogen” before moving on to give an extremely basic summary of its importance. The introduction is plain and does not provide a satisfactory opening into the subject being discussed.

Based on the information that is presented in the article, the quality of the evidence is adequate. However, this pathogen is of great importance to a major global crop. Based on this fact alone, the article needs to be edited to include more information on the hosts and symptoms, pathogenesis, and most importantly the control methods.

This article has a number of adequate sources listed in the references section. Despite this, much of the information seems to come directly from the second source, which is a review article on P. megakarya. This review piece seems like a reputable source, but the article needs more diversity of the information being presented. No assumptions seem to be made.

The content of this article could be improved through the examination of current scientific literature. A vast portion of this article leaves out current research and theories. Most importantly, it leaves out the current theories and advancements in control methods. The biggest improvements should be updating the information and going into further detail.

The headings in this article are sufficient, but the subheadings in the control methods section are not focused enough and do not explain the material contained within them. In the “chemical control” subheading, it gives a brief overview of the fungicide application practices, but does not explain the current research into fungicide half-lives and capabilities.

The “cultural control” subheading is the most problematic section of this article. During the last part of this subheading’s information, it explains common practices such as frequent pod collection and husk burning. This is the only “cultural” part of the section. The rest of the cultural control subheading tries to describe the importance of genetically resistant plants in 1 or 2 sentences. Not only is this not a cultural control by any means, it is also one of the most important aspects of current research into P. megakarya. I suggest that an entirely new sub-heading be made where information about control of P. megakarya by genetic resistance can be appropriately discussed.

This article does not contain any images. I suggest that a few should be added, detailing the life cycle of P. megakarya and also the infectious pod of a cacao tree. Appendices and footnotes are also missing from the article.

This article remains neutral and unbiased throughout. Any edits being made should continue to use this appropriate writing voice. The important facts are emphasized and made clear through their descriptions.

The majority of the references in this article are reliable. The fifth source listed on the reference list links you to a website that does not appear to be in service anymore. The sources need to updated along with the content

Jb347513 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)