Talk:Triangularia setosa

peer review for Hopewallen on Podospora setosa link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hopewallen/sandbox -references from strong reliable resources -some pictures of your fungus would make this even better -taxonomic info is well organized and concise -if you need more morphological or physiological information Earth science library has multiple books on just Ascomycota -a diagram outlining the rhythmic day/night cycle spore release could help illustrate and explain this process -is there any information about pathogenicity in humans/insects? EmmaKas (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello,

Your lead gives the audience a good overview of some of the key points mentioned later on in the article. In the first sentence, the word “Ascomycota” should be capitalized. Also, in the last sentence of your lead, you should change “fungi” to “fungus” instead.

The subheadings are distinct and ordered appropriately, which makes it easy for the reader to follow chronologically. I like how you linked vocabulary to their corresponding Wikipedia pages, however I feel like some of the terms that are highlighted seem to be a bit random and unrequired, such as “seeds” and “decaying” in the “Habitat and ecology” section. In addition, under the “History and taxonomy” section, I personally don’t think it is necessary to link “Germany” (or any of the other countries you go on to mention under the “Habitat and ecology” subheading).

The “Growth and morphology” section is particularly detailed and uses a wide range of sources, showing the reliability of the content. I also appreciate how you recognised and mentioned that there is a lack of information pertaining to the asexual state of Podospora setosa, because it tells us that this area is underexplored and can be researched further in the future. Overall, this section of your article is very strong and does not need any major editing to enhance it.

I was a bit confused about the statements you made in the “Physiology” section. Initially, you mention that P. setosa is not found in feces from omnivorous or carnivorous animals, but then you go on to say that it has been found in the “excrement of rabbits, geese, farm animals, and possums”. This is contradictory because geese and possums are omnivores. Therefore, I think you need to check these points again from the sources they came from and ascertain what’s true. I found a paper titled “Coprophilous ascomycetes on different dung types” (Richardson 1972) that investigated the presence of fungi, such as P. setosa, in various samples of dung, which may be useful in providing clarity to this matter. Also, I think it would be more grammatically correct to say “found in the feces” and “recorded in the excrement” instead of “on”.

You have cited a good number and wide range of references, but I think you need to edit how they appear on the page, as it repeatedly says “Check date values…” next to several of them.

Overall, your article is very organised and covers a good amount of details relevant to the subject. I hope my comments were helpful and good luck on the final assignment! SaniyaSayed4 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead evaluation Your lead is great with relevant information, and right away gives the reader the basics of the fungus. Content evaluation You have lots of great information about the fungus and have stated the information is a very clear manner, the only comment I would make is that maybe some information can be left out, like your point that there is no information on the asexual state, or your first point under the header of habitat, maybe you can leave out where its not found as you later state where it is found. other than that your information all seems to be up to date and relevant. Tone and balance evaluation Your content is not biased in anyway and i found your information fairly distributed. Sources and references evaluation You have many great sources, that all worked for me except source 9, only U of T students can access that article so maybe you might want to try and find another version of the article that is available to the public. Organization evaluation Currently all your information is still in point form, but the information seems t flow well, and is clear and concise. the only comment I have is that under the growth and morphology header some of your points jump from describing the fungus to its spores, so maybe just describe one then the other, but that could just be because you haven't yet formatted the paragraphs. New Article Evaluation You seem to have lots of reliable sources. the article follows the format of most articles and is easy for the reader to find what they are looking for on the topic. Overall evaluation Overall your article is off to a great start, and seems to have all the key features it will need. Im sure once all the formatting and writing is complete the article will be great? Best go luck on the rest of the assignment! SarahBoujan (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)SarahBoujan

Suggestions
As I mentioned to User:Wshepherdmyco, this fungus in successional colonization of dung. I think Ann Bell has a nice diagram that depicts this, but I'm not sure if P. appendiculata is listed in it. Nils Lundquist (1972) might have discussed this (LUNDQVIST N. 1972. — Nordic Sordariaceae s. lat. Symbolae Botanicae Upsalienses, 20: 1-374 -- I think this is in the Earth Sciences Library). There may be more info on the ecology of this species by Webster, Don Wicklow or Francesco Doveri. Also, here is a reference for your species on horse dung.. Medmyco (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)