Talk:Paecilomyces marquandii

Hello KeonHoKim,

Apologies for my mistake! Et al. should not be italicized according to the Chicago Manual of Style 7.53 - “Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized. ibid, et al., ca., passim.”. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch07/ch07_sec053.html

Axzeng (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello KeonHoKim!

Your work on Paecilomyces marquandii is well constructed and incredibly rich of information, great job! Below are some suggestions I would like to make:

First, "et al." needs to be italicized. Second, I suggest that you search and correct typos in the fungus name. (E.g. in the summary)

You included a summary covering all aspects of this species, which is great.
 * Summary

I see that the flow in your summary goes by morphology, taxonomy, ecology, pathology, physiology, and utility. However, I suggest the following order instead: morphology, physiology, taxonomy, ecology, pathology, and treatment. Since there are many utilities of this fungus, I suggest that you either do not include them or briefly describe them with one word for each function.

I suggest that you briefly include an explanation on why the fungus is often confused with Paecilomyces lilacinus (e.g. P. marquandii is often confused with Paecilomyces lilacinus due to their similar morphological characteristics such as ...). Some of the linking sentence structures may be omitted (i.e. In addition, However, also, etc). The last sentence in this summary can be better constructed, without using subjective words such as "promising", and omitting some details that can be extracted from the page you have linked (i.e. The fungus demonstrated its ability in removing Alcholr, a worldwide herbicide). Besides, I believe that the process is termed biodegradation. I suggest that you briefly introduce P. marquandii's utility in biodegradation before providing a specific example (Alcholr).


 * History and taxonomy

Again, how is P. marquandii similar to P.lilacinus? If the literature did not describe the similarity, I suggest that you comment on that, by saying something like "the similar aspects of these two species remain to be explored".


 * Growth and morphology

The flow of this section is good. However, many of the past tense sentences can be changed into present tense. E.g. "the optimal temperature ... is 25ºC, and maximum growth occurred at 30ºC"


 * Physiology

This section contains some subjective descriptions, such as "provide a deeper insight into...". You may alternatively describe this as "characterization of P.marquandii has implications in ...".

Remember, Wikipedia values objectivity and a neutral standpoint. Some primary and secondary literature may include sections like "future directions" to confirm the value of their study. However, I believe that the weight of those implications should be neutralized when we cite them for a Wikipedia article.

Besides, I think the utility of this fungus deserves its own section. It is, you can add a section with the heading "Utility", and subsequently divide the section into "Fungi antagonist", "Herbicide biodegradation", "Keratinase", and "Pb toxicity clarification". Also, I suggest that you elaborate on keratinase activity. What are the implications of hydrolyzing skin constituents?

In addition, I don't think you have to include a thorough introduction on the herbicide. Such information can be read under its link. You can briefly describe its widespread use (with citations), and keep going with your fungus (which should enjoy the centre of the stage).


 * Habitat and ecology

Sentences under the second bullet point can be broken down into shorter parts. E.g. P. marquandii was... soil types. These include forest soils...

A major problem that I noticed: although mentioned in the summary, "mycoses in immunocompromised patients" is found nowhere else in your outline, aside from the brief mention in the "history and taxonomy" section. I suggest that you include a section with the subheading "Pathology", and include details on how the fungus causes mycosis. An example of this is the "Disease in humans" section of Apophysomyces variabilis. The treatment options should also be included. You may also include how Paecilomyces lilacinus is a major cause of mycosis. If not much literature could be found on the role of your fungus in mycosis, maybe consider not including it in the summary. Another problem is that, many of the sentences lack citations. In another word, a lot of the statements in this outline have not yet been supported with evidence that readers can trace by clicking on the subscript number. For example, I couldn't find the citation of the last two sentences of the summary just by looking at them.

Some resources that might help:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?qs=Paecilomyces%20marquandii&show=25&sortBy=relevance

http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search?qs=Paecilomyces%20marquandii%20mycoses&show=25&sortBy=relevance

Specifically, http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/science/article/pii/S1198743X14620231 mainly on P. lilacinus and mycosis and treatment

http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/science/article/pii/S0304389415001521 on Alachlor biodegradation

http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/science/article/pii/S1978301916000024 on antagonist activity

Regards,Axzeng (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)