User talk:Renatofrart/sandbox

Assignment 1

Nicely done. Medmyco (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 2

Your article is coming along well. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles to make sure that your case study descriptions are OK. In the ecology section, I think its worth noting that most to the times this fungus has been recovered have been from infected people - so in other words, not a lot is known about its natural habitat and ecology (correct me if I'm wrong). As far as the laboratory detection, it is not possible to identify the fungus from tissue. It would need to be cultured (sporulates poorly, takes a long time to grow), and the common diagnostic pathway increasingly is through molecular methods (you may have found one or two references to support this). Also as a final thought on format, you should separate measurement units from numbers by a non-breaking space, e.g., 15 °C Medmyco (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi! I'm your classmate Minnie and I was just reading your article. I think it is coming along nicely! One thing that I am wondering about is if your introduction contains too many details. It seems like some of the information gets repeated in the sections that appear later on, so maybe if you moved the details from the introduction to the section headings, it will be more organized. Also, I like the case studies! MinnieVW (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'd like to thank you for your input regarding which directions I should take as far as my budding article is concerned. It is greatly appreciated; I'll be certain to take appropriate action regarding the section on disease in my article.

I'd like to take the time to return the favour with respect to your article and provide my thoughts on it. To be frank, I think it's really well done. To be honest, I can't find much fault with it; it is, in a word, exemplary. My only suggestion would be to follow Minnie's advice; she has identified what I believe to be the only flaw in your burgeoning article, which is the too-long introduction. It is my understanding that the introduction of a wikipedia article should be a representation of the length and detail of the article in its entirety. Seeing as how our articles are not expected to be of a large length, I'd say the average introductory paragraph of the articles written for this assignment should be between 1-2 paragraphs. On that note, my advice would be to halve your introduction and allocate the remainder to augment the rest of your article.

Again, great work. Good luck with your article too, I'm looking forward to the final product.

ARoble12 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for your feedback on my article, I very much appreciate it. Like the others said, rearranging your article would go a long way in dictating the flow of information from one topic to the next. Aside from that, I noticed in the first sentence at the top you designated the species as a "considered to be emerging" fungus which I'm not sure is quite a neutral or objective position that most encyclopedia articles start with. I would remove that clause and maybe include it later if its status as an "emerging" fungus has important implications in a later section. Also on another user's sandbox, I saw Dr. Scott mention that when you name your species at the start of a sentence, you must put the whole genus name and not abbreviate it as "A. variabilis". Article is coming along nicely! Good job! Rptseng (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]