Talk:Cladophialophora arxii

Hi there!

Great job on your first outline, I think it has the beginnings of a solid article. It follows the assignment outline very well, and adding the additional subheading for clinical significance was a nice and important touch as the fungus can infect the brains of humans. I do however think that you should add the section on habitat back in. It’s an important feature to note where a fungus would normally grow in its lifecycle outside of human infection. I think your article would definitely benefit from that information!

In order to help out with this, I looked up the species name under google books and it looks like information about the species’ specific habitat, as well as the genera can be found in the book “Understanding Terrestrial Microbial Communities.” This book specifically talks about the habitat for your species, but I also noticed that there was mention of your species in many online google books. I think it would be worthwhile to check them out!

One of the questions I was hoping you can clarify in your article is the two clade system. As the infectious clade (clade 2) is the bantiana - clade, does this mean that all species under that clade are infectious to the brain and operate similarly to C. bantiana? If this is the case then you may be able to utilize all the research done about C. bantiana to explain how your species functions, but if not it may be worthwhile to explain the difference, and mention how C. bantiana is the primary fungus that causes brain abscesses.

Beyond that, I noticed you had a good number of journal articles referenced, with some of them being very recent, which is great! I think because your fungus has a fair amount of literature written on it, you should seek out more to backup different sections. As it stands, some of your headings only have one source for all the information in them (e.g. history), and your article would be stronger if it pulled from more diverse pool.

In conclusion, the current content of this article is definitely on the right path, I think focusing on the clinical aspect of this fungus would be the best opportunity for this article to be used. Tackling the questions about lifecycle and environment would help flesh it out (as mentioned earlier). I hope some of these points help, best of luck!

Hopewallen (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Oddosilv
 * In user's sandbox

Lead Evaluation
It doesn't look like you've added a lead yet but this might be a good idea! Adding a brief introductory paragraph to your polished article will give the reader a quick summary of your fungi in case they don't have time to read the whole article or if they don't need a deeper understanding of it. I think you could put information like who discovered it, it's basic morphology, an interesting fact, and maybe its family name.

Content evaluation
It looks like you have some good up to date information on your topic. There are a couple of things I think you should expand on in your article. There are words like "phaeohyphomycotic" that I don't think the general audience will understand. I think in a situation like this you can briefly explain what the word means or link it to another wiki article if applicable. I also think when organizing the clinical relevance section you should try organizing it a more clear way. It looks like you jump from topic to topic but it might also just be because these are listed facts! You also mention "Majority of human opportunistic fungi can be found within two clades" under Phylogeny and I'm not sure what this means. Could you perhaps expand on this? The point above that mentions that it belongs to 4 different lineages and it might be a good idea to list those lineages! Finally, if you can find out who identified your species and then who changed the name, it might be a good idea to list them under the history and taxonomy!

Tone and balance evaluation
You did a great job keeping your work neutral and unbiased. It looks like it should form a good article.

Sources and references evaluation
Content is backed up with good solid sources. It is a bit difficult to find sources on this topic but you might be able to find some more print resources!

Overall evaluation
Overall, I learned a lot reading this and I think that once it is put into full sentenced and reorganized a bit it will make a wonderful and educational article. You did an excellent job explaining your sections! I think more information on the habitat would be nice as well if you can find it. I found this article, Badali H et al. Biodiversity of the genus Cladiophialophora. Studies in Mycology. 2008; 61:175-191

that talks a bit about the habitat. You might be able to get some more information from it!

Hdewett (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)