Talk:Pseudeurotium ovale

Hi

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmmaKas/sandbox This article talks about your fungus' morphology and habitats.

-I think you need to add scientific classification in a different way as the template coding suggests!

-Your headings such as physical characteristics and human pathology are interesting! Just need to put more information under them.

-The forth reference does not have a link to it.. Also, your page will be better if you have more reference articles I think!

-"Pleomorphic Fungi: The Diversity and Its Taxonomic Implications" by J. Sugiyama et al. talks a little about your fungus. I read that this is often found in Japan.

-You can put a picture of your fungus to make your page more fancy and colourful.

Hi!

Some of your sentences (Particularly under Reproductive cycle and Morphology) don't include citations. I would recommend going through your article and making sure you have a citation that supports every fact.

You could also include links to other Wikipedia articles that mention terms the reader might be unfamiliar with, like 'ascocarp' or 'conidia'. Here is a Wikipedia tutorial on how to do this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia_links

Some of the formatting on your page is a little odd. For example, Pseudodeuterium ovale appears to be a heading without any text underneath. I don't believe that you can give your sandbox a title in the same way you would on your final article, but I would recommend that you remove this heading so it doesn't accidentally end up in your final version. Also, under your Growth/Environment subheading, there is a citation without any text beside it. I would revisit this and remove it/put it in the right place.

I think your article could benefit from more sources over all. I found it very helpful to go the library, walk through the stacks at Gerstein (call number RC117) and pull any mycology books off the shelf that looked relevant. Then, I would look through the index to see if my fungus was included in the book. Since your fungus is an ascomycete, I would recommend you try this book first (you can search for it in the U of T libraries database - https://search.library.utoronto.ca/index ): Pitt J.I, Hocking A.D. 1999. Fungi and food spoilage, 2nd Edition. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishing.

Remember to always italicize the genus and species name of any fungus you mention (i.e. Pseudeurotium ovale, P. ovale, etc.). Refer to this if you have questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Scientific_names

Excellent job including some backstory around the changes in P. ovale classification. 3 things you can consider adding: 1. What does "incertae sedis" mean? Briefly explain this for the reader. 2. Before P. ovale was reclassified, who originally described the fungus, and where/when did this happen? This link can tell you more: http://www.mycobank.org/BioloMICS.aspx?TableKey=14682616000000067&Rec=22964&Fields=All 3. Does P. ovale have any known synonyms? Who gave it these synonyms, and when? This information is also usually available on Mycobank.

I like your subheadings under the Physiology heading, it makes it clear and concise to read (I'm going to use this in my article!). However, maybe Environment (or Habitat and ecology if you prefer) should be its own heading, not under Physiology, since these topics are quite different. You could also consider making Morphology into its own heading as well.

Also, I believe that the assignment guidelines say that only the first letter of a heading is capitalized. Assuming that this also applies to subheadings, I would change Reproductive Cycle to Reproductive cycle, Human Pathology to Human pathology... etc.

You could use a little more information about morphology. This article has some, if you're interested (use command F to pick out the facts quickly, this is what I've been doing): https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mtax/mt/2013/00000124/00000001/art00031#

You could also expand your article by creating a new subheading, like 'Medical applications'. Since there isn't lots of information, this could potentially go under your Physiology section. This article suggests P. ovale produces an antibiotic: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11101-011-9216-2

Under Reproductive Cycle, I wouldn't use 'Dover et al' because this information disrupts the flow of the text and can be found in the references list at the bottom.

Under Growth/Environment, you mention that its range is diverse but you don't mention where it has been observed. Revisit your source and include these places if possible to give the reader a better idea of where this fungus can be found.

Your heading at the bottom is Toxicology and Pathology, but there isn't a lot of toxicology relevant information (i.e. poisonings). I would recommend removing Toxicology from the heading, unless you find some poisonings associated with this fungus.

Under Human Pathology, when you say 'Onychomycosis or fungal infection of the toenails' is this supposed to mean that Onchomycosis is an infection of the toenails? Or that the fungus is associated with Onychomycosis and fungal infection of toenails? This could benefit from clarification.

I also found this article, which (if you read the abstract) indicates that P. ovale is also implicated in dermatomycosis in the elderly: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258506554_Dermatomicosis_en_ancianos_institucionalizados_y_estudio_de_sensibilidad_in_vitro_a_los_antifungicos_sistemicos I would recommend that you continue to search the literature for cases like this, to beef up your pathology section.

Great start!

Makennatimm (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Overall, it is a good start. You used passive voice to write your article, so the tone is good. You organized your article by using a few subheadings, which is easier for the readers to read and follow.

Here are a few ideas that I think may be able to help you write your article:

I think the first subheading "Pseudeurotium ovale" can be removed, or maybe you want to add some brief introduction is cool as well.
You did not include the taxobox for this species, in which you need to provide information regarding the taxonomy of the species, as well as some synonyms of the species. All this information can be found at these websites: http://www.mycobank.org/Biolomics.aspx?Table=Mycobank&Page=200&ViewMode=Basic; http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/names.asp; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy; https://www.gbif.org/species/5.
I think 'Morphology' and 'Growth/Environment' does not quite belong to physiology, it is better to move them under two separate subheadings.
Another thing I noticed regarding the 'Morphology' part is that you talked about the morphology of the genus Pseudeurotium, which is good. But I think it will be better if you can find something that's actually about the morphology of this particular species.
An issue regarding the references is that for reference 5 and 6, there's no link for the readers to find the paper.

I've also found some additional information and reference that you may be used to write your article^[1]:

Colonies of the Pseudeurotium ovale grow slowly, they can reach about 3.2cm in ten days under the temperature of 24-celsius.
Colonies of the Pseudeurotium ovale are floccose and initially with a white colour. With the development of ascomata, the colour of the colonies will turn into grey.
First isolated from Globodera rostochiensis
Have been found in soils and in animals like rabbit and sheep
This species will not grow at the temperature of 37-celsuis degree

I found all this additional information from books in the Gerstein library. I've cited the book I found and you can go check it out, there's still plenty of information that you may think are useful. Good luck! Nnnnnger (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don’t forget to add in the “taxo box” code from the assignment instructions at the top of your source code. I think it is very important when writing any Wikipedia article on an organism to include this because it clearly outlines the phylogeny of the particular organism in such a way that is easy for readers to understand, which is why it is more important than simply having the order, genus, and family outlined solely within the body of the article. Also, according to Mycobank (http://www.mycobank.org/BioloMICS.aspx?TableKey=14682616000000067&Rec=22964&Fields=All), it appears that your fungus has an alternative name associaed with it: Pleuroascus ovalis. When searching for relevant information on your fungus, it may be helpful to perform searches using the alternative name, and information regarding the alternative name and how it came to be classified as such, might help fleshout your section on taxonomy. Carrying on, while reading your first source, I also noticed that there was a varient of your species mentioned: “Pseudeurotium ovale var. milkoi”. Upon further investigation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=205927&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock), there appears to be two varieties under your species of fungus. It might be useful to look into these varieties and explain how they differ within your article. Next, make sure you are citing any and all information you have (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_and_why_to_cite_sources). I also noted that you did not link your article to the taxonomy database. Don’t forget to look up your fungus on WikiProject Taxonomy database for the appropriate Q number! (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10642169) Next to the binomial name in the heading, you can find the Q number for your fungus: Q10642169. The last line of code should look like this (but nested within two sets of "{}"): taxobar | from = Q10642169 This is all detailed within the instructions for assignment 2, make sure you go over these thoroughly before you begin! Good luck with the rest of your article! Naq Nau (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Many good suggestions above. Although there is not a great deal of literature on this species, there is plenty you can say about it based on bit and pieces reported in a number of places. Please remember not to use in-line citing (as you have) and instead use the citation formation I provided. Medmyco (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Domsch, K.H.; Gams, Walter; Andersen, Traute-Heidi (1980). Compendium of Soil Fungi (2nd ed.). London, UK: Academic Press. ISBN 9780122204029.

[domsch1980-1] Domsch, K.H.; Gams, Walter; Andersen, Traute-Heidi (1980). Compendium of Soil Fungi (2nd ed.). London, UK: Academic Press. ISBN 9780122204029.

[1]