User talk:Stefaniemogen/sandbox

Hello, below are some suggestions that I have for your article. I hope it helps :)

You mentioned the muriform in the morphology first but explained more of what it is in the epidemiology section. Maybe add a little description as to what muriform is while describing its physical properties at the beginning, just so we are clear what it is first instead of later.
The fungus is classified as saprotrophic, but then there is mention of being more prevalent in dryer areas due to the favour of the fungus toward cacti. I take it that the cacti are dead ones? Do you have any other examples of plants that it might be specialized toward? (I'm thinking of decaying cacti, but the land there wouldn't be used for agriculture as much? This part does not make that much sense to me but it could just be me not fully understanding how the clearing of land for agriculture works)
Good job in giving examples of more prevalent countries and also having a reason why men are more likely to be a target.
The mention of how the immune system technically should be able to remove the fungus irritant/pathogen is also really nice (good job).
In the immune response: you could briefly mentioned that the melanin is from the pigment of the muriform cells, because for a second I thought the melanin in the host was what renders macrophages less useful. Maybe in general rearrange the sentence so it could be more clear that the muriform cells have managed to strengthen itself.
To my understanding, the infection causes inflammation, and the inflammation could be ceased with the help of antifungal medications. How would chemotherapy play a part? And since you talked more about how it affects humans more than its effects on wood, maybe suggest (or if they have papers on it too) preventative measures to not contract it (it looks like a pretty serious and complicated disease, where the people who contract it might not necessarily have access to the treatments required to alleviate it). Feliciape (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by AnuYo

Hi Stefaniemogen,

You've packed your article with a lot of great details! It provides the reader with a very rounded understanding of what your fungus is and what it does. Here are a few things you may want to take into consideration:

Ecology/Epidemiology sections:

The information you provided about the climates your fungus grows in seems like it would make good introductory material. Perhaps you could move that to an earlier point in the article (maybe to the Ecology section?), and leave the disease prevalence in particular countries until later, as you have done in the Epidemiology section
As the previous reviewer mentioned, I am also a little confused about the connection between cacti and agricultural land. Are there any other specific examples of plants that this fungus grows on that are more likely to be found in forested areas that are cleared for agricultural land?

Diagnosis:

minor typo: "the fungi grow" to "the fungus grows" --> I believe you are talking about your particular of species of fungus in the singular

General:

You have a lot of information that is good, but it is not information that is unique to your fungus --> you have provided general information about definitions and processes that users could access under pages for that particular topic rather than on the page of your fungus (examples below)
Growth and reproduction: "with the youngest conidia farthest away from the hyphae" --> this is information about conidia and hyphae that can be found under those pages, it is not unique to this fungus
Ecology: saprotroph is defined
Diagnosis: PCR assays are described
Immune response: explanation of macrophages and neutrophils functioning in innate immune system
You have redefined a lot of general information in your page, but I think you did a very good job in linking those other pages to your own. I think it would be enough for external pages to be linked if the reader needs additional information

On the whole, I think you've done an excellent job with your article, in particular with the "Disease in humans" section which is very thorough. Well done! I hope these points are helpful!

AnuYo (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HMB436 Peer Review

Hey Stefaniemogen,

I enjoyed reading about your fungus! A lot of really good details in your article; here's some feedback for you to consider.

For your sidebar, the title is still your name and sandbox instead of the species name.

You should consider adding in a taxonomy or a history section to provide some background for your fungus. For example, I'm guessing the name carrionii is related to the word carrion (dead or decaying meat) which may be a reference to its ecology or function.

The ecology section is lacking a lot of detail, especially for location and temperature and food requirements for its growth. Is it international or only found in a few specific locations? If there isn't that much information on the mushroom, you could combine the growth and reproduction section with the ecology section instead of having a really small ecology section. Something to consider.

You have good information in morphology and growth and reproduction but in comparison to your disease in humans section, they could use more fleshing out. You might also want to include a section on physiology of the mushroom for more detail into why it's pathogenic and how it functions.

Disease in humans is a really strong and interesting section, good job. I see a lot of information in this section that could be dispersed to the previous sections. For example, you list the countries that the disease usually occurs in while also pointing out that the fungus infects cacti in these areas. This provides you with information on the humidity required (ecology/physiology) and the type of plant life that it feeds on (ecology).

Since chromoblastomycosis is a condition where only a small subset is caused by carrionii, you should consider putting less emphasis on the disease, possible just citing the Wikipedia article for the disease directly.

I really enjoyed the emphasis on the pathobiology of the fungus but it highlights the lack of information that is provided on the history and broader background of the fungus. Including those would really round out the article and make it a more enjoyable read.

Let me know if you need any clarification on the feedback I've given to you.

Liuqingc (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]