User talk:Dhs293/sandbox
Hi Dhs293,
Great job on your article! Very thorough research and I can find a variety of information. Your sentences are well constructed and follow a logical follow.
But I would still like to give a few suggestions on the content and organization:
- There are a few typos and confusing phrases, for instance under the sub-title "Morphology", you stated "some strains can show a pinkish to reddish purple pigment when they absorb the sclerotia". I wasn't sure what you meant by "absorb the sclerotia", and if the fungus make sclerotia, it would be an interesting fact to add in and expand upon.
- You may list the facts about fungal metabolism, growth and reproduction under a separate title, perhaps "Physiology". Right now they are sort of scattered and might be confusing to follow.
- It was mentioned in several places that the fungus feeds on a variety of substances, but it would be a good idea to organize them and clearly state the fungus's primary C source, whether they are saprotrophs or parasites, etc.
- I noticed that the morphology section only includes information regarding the asexual state. If the fungus has no known sexual reproduction, it would be less confusing for the reader if you explicitly state it.
- Also I can only find microscopic description of its morphology, are there articles describing its macroscopic appearance (i.e. colonies)?
- Are there any articles about fungal morphology in a laboratory setting? Maybe you could add some information about its behaviour in different culture and differential tests.
- It's only my personal opinion, but you have a very extensive History section. Is there a way to paraphrase and condense the section so the article looks more proportional.
- For the Disease in humans section, it would be interesting to see more information on presentations, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, resistance to antibiotics, etc.
Again, overall excellent work!
Reneelinyx (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reneelinyx
HMB436 Commentary
[edit]Hi Dhs 293,
A lot of really good details here and lots of relevant facts; here are some additional points of feedback for you to consider.
- The binomial name section is not formatted properly, you can use | binomial = Aspergillus candidus, but I see that you've italicized it everywhere else. You should also try to include the authority that states the name in the sidebar here. You also need to change the title of the sidebar! Right now it's still your name.
- I'm not sure if this is necessary but you could consider including hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles for the taxonomy section for all those other types of candidus. Looking through it, it would be nice for the reader if you made a brief mention of what the different types are like.
- Really small thing, but you should look at past and present tense for Pier Micheli who is most likely deceased by now.
- Very good etymology section in general, with a detailed look into the name!
- Consider proofreading some of the sentences in the history section, especially punctuation; there are a few comma splices.
- There's a lot of overlap between History and Taxonomy; I like the way you separated them but you could consider evening out the two sections by moving more content into the Taxonomy section since most of the information covered in history is taxonomical.
- The first statement in 'Morphology' is very vague and doesn't provide much information to the reader. I'm guessing it might just be a placeholder statement for the intro eventually.
- You could add in some information regarding the morphology of the teleomorph vs. the anamorph.
- Ecology section provides detailed geographic locations but doesn't say anything about the survivability of the fungus. You could move much of the information in growth and reproduction into the ecology section to thresh out why it exists in those locations, making the information a bit more inter-relatable.
- I'd recommend getting rid of the habitat and contamination section and splitting the information amongst other headings. Information relating to habitat can be shifted to ecology, while information relating to contamination can be moved to either a new physiology section or the existing disease section. I'd recommend the former as some of the facts are primarily physiological.
- You mention birds and pigs briefly in the "Disease in humans" section so I'd recommend either dropping those or changing the section title to just "Pathology" in general to keep it more focused.
- Last thing is reference #12; it doesn't seem like it was used in the article so either remove it or add the in-text citation. I may have missed it but just thought I'd point that out.
Overall, great work, and a very interesting fungus. Let me know if you need any clarification on the feedback I've given.