Talk:Sagenomella keratitidis

Hi Dishamakhijani,

Good work, but I do have a few suggestions to make this article more complete:


 * There are a few typos in your articles, for example, the first point in your history section. Should be easy to fix once you read over them.


 * The Reference section needs further formatting, you can copy the template on the wiki course website for a start, maybe use "edit source" and fill out all the blanks in the pop-up window.


 * Since it is a pathogen, you could include some information about clinical presentation, pathogenicity, diagnosis of keratitis of the eye, etc.


 * The original article also includes the fungal colonies appearance on PDYA, which you might want to comment on.


 * I'm not sure if some of the information in the History section would belong there.


 * I assume this fungus has very limited articles regarding it, since most of your facts came from 1 source. But it is still critical to touch upon some of the basic information such as the fungus's primary C source, metabolism, sexual and asexual forms (it was mentioned in the original article that there's no known teleomorph, but the fungus "has a close affinity to Trichocomaceae, where anamorphs produce conidia from phialides and have connectives between chained conidia in most cases"), morphology of the hyphae and colonies, etc.


 * If there's no specific information on the species, you could search books and review articles about the genus. There might be some general characteristics that can apply to this fungus.

Reneelinyx (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reneelinyx

HMB436 Review
Hi Dishamakhijani, You have a very interesting fungus. It must've been difficult to gather much information though. Here are some of my suggestions:

Taxobox
 * in the binomial name, I don't think the author should be 'Botanical studies'. In the Mycobank, it says the authors are "W.L. Chen, Y.M. Ju, H.M. Hsieh, H.Y. Lin & F.R. Hu". I am not 100% sure, but I think 'Chen' or 'Chen et al' would be a more appropriate title

History
 * typo found in the first point - "Discovered as its own species in 2008 by in Taiwan"
 * What is microbial keratitis? It would be nice if you explained in more detail about this disease (cause, physiology, diagnosis, treatment)
 * the second point is a bit confusing - does it mean that the microbial keratitis happens on lenses, but not to people wearing those lenses??

Taxonomy
 * the information under this heading seems like it should belong in the 'history' more than 'taxonomy' because it's talking about how the unidentified strain of fungus was named by a few scientists, after comparing its morphology with other strains of the genus Sagenomella

Growth and Morphology
 * in the 4th point, what does the small size of conidiophores have to do with the colour being white rather than gray?
 * right now, you have all the characteristics in separate bullet points. When you actually write your article, I think it would be okay to actually combine some of those points in one sentence

Pathogenicity
 * I'm confused about the pathogenicity of the fungus, because you've mentioned that your fungus is not as pathogenic, but under 'habitat and ecology' you wrote down that it's a human eye pathogen. I think you should describe more about the pathogen and its severity, because your points are a bit contradicting right now.
 * also, since the fungus infects humans, perhaps adding words like 'zoophilic' or 'anthropophilic' would make your article more descriptive

References
 * try to use the citing tool in the sandbox to site references 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Others
 * is there an etymology behind the name of your fungus? It would be interesting to compare the etymology and the actual appearance of your fungus, to see if the Taiwan researchers actually did a good job in classifying your fungus as the genus Sagenomella
 * any information about how these fungus reproduce asexually? if the fungus does not reproduce asexually, or we don't know if it produces asexually or not, it would be nice to state it somewhere, to make sure that you've attempted to cover all of these aspects, but couldn't find any information
 * I went and looked over your first reference by et al., and it talks about a case study of a 35-year old contact lense wearer, and some characteristics of the fungus, such as, "conidia dry chains, hyaline, smooth, globose to subglobose, 2.5-3.5 um, chlamydospores absent" - maybe you could include some of these data?

Hope this helps!Dhs293 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from ADSky
Greetings Dishamakhijani, I did a quick search myself, and considering how recent this fungus was discovered, good job on researching and creating an article for this fungus, as there seems to be very limited sources you can use for this fungus. A few things in terms of editing is the first point in history, make sure you are more clear. Also, I am not sure if this is required on wikipedia, but make sure your references are in alphabetical order. Also, some of your references look incomplete, make sure you properly format them, such as mycobank. Your second point in taxonomy seems like it would fit more in the history section. In the habitat and ecology section, you state that it is a human eye pathogen, that would most likely fit better on the pathogenicity section, or creating a section for disease. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any sources to help you out. If for any reason I happen across a useful source, I will let you know here. Keep up the good work.