User talk:AdibaR/sandbox

Because this is an outline, you're probably intending to fix everything I might mention anyways, but here's some input:

- could combine certain points to make up new sections, like habitat/ecology, growth and reproudction, physiology, morphology (i think it would be useful to group all morphological properties together, no matter what scale they're on, unless it differs because of their maturation process, then put it in growth), metabolites/toxicology/effects on other organisms

- if clavacin makes this fungus more important to people, then maybe the time of discovery of clavatin and its production in this fungus should be put in history

- should state what an acronym is before using it, like saying electron microsopy (EM) and then using EM, instead of just using it without ever explaining

- some points should be excluded because somewhat irrelevant, or explained for relevancy, like "noteworthy lipid synthesis also occurs", why are they noteworthy, what kind of lipids, etc., or the following point, of production of vitamin b and a bunch of digestive enzymes; does this make this fungus particular in any way?

- GC content, (to my knowledge, at least), is used primarily for phylogeny determining reasons, and isn't really useful information unless you expand on its relations to other species (i mean some people think higher GC content can be adaptive to extreme environments, but the GC content for your fungus is pretty average)

Otherwise, you have a lot of facts down and a solid base of points to draw from and write a really good article, after condensing everything together.

Thisiseyes (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

HMB436 Commentary
Hi - I noticed a few things on your fungi. The page looks good, with lots of information on the fungi. I would recommend to format the information differently to make it easier to read for a non-scientific audience. The points you have are heavy on the scientific language, turning the points into sentences and explaining what the condia is and other parts of the fungi might help the reader (or turning some of the definitions into hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles). Fungi names were also not italicized in your article, you can do that with quotation marks around the name.

There were also a few generalities with points made, for example mentioning some fungi are odour-less while others can have a strong smell, or the size and shape of the condia for strains. It may be easier to explain more on the difference between strains with different characteristics (if they are all defined as Aspergillus clavatus). One resource that may be helpful is Genomic sequence of the pathogenic and allergenic filamentous fungus Aspergillus fumigatus found in Nature: doi:10.1038/nature04332. The article goes into the pathology of the fungi for cattle and maltworkers. Going forward, it may be beneficial to do more research on the pathology of the fungi, and see if it can spread to humans. Overall the information looks good, but changing the format and details will help others understand the article.

Another article which may be of interest for you is: Biosynthesis of antimicrobial silver nanoparticles by the endophytic fungus Aspergillus clavatus by Vijay C Verma1, Ravindra N Kharwar & Alan C Gange examining the antimicrobial abilities of the fungus. AlainaBallantyne (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

HMB436 Review
Hi AdibaR,

I really liked how you had lots of details for your fungus. Here are some suggestions. - try including some information about the etymology of your fungus (ie. what the name of your fungus means in Latin) as a starting point, take a look at this page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291468/. It has some information about what Aspergillus means in Latin.

- Don't forget to italicize the name of the fungus as you write your article.

- Taxonomy
 * there are a variety of species that you've mentioned that are under Aspergillus clavati, but in the taxobox, you've only included A. pallidus as a synonym, and I found that a bit confusing.. Does that mean there were a few candidate fungus but it was concluded that only one of them fit in the A. clavitus category?
 * It seems like some of the information under "Taxonomy" can go under "History" for example - "Later four more species were discovered belonging to the Aspergillus section Clavati: A. rhizopodus, A. longivesica, Neocarpenteles acanthosporus and A. clavatonanicus."
 * For the last point on taxonomy, it says that A. pallidus and A. clavatus have identical sequences - what do you mean by that? Do you mean identical sequences of DNA? Some people would assume DNA sequences, but it would be nice to state it to clarify. Also, if possible, it would be nice to see some of the actual sequences that were identical and some information about what it might encode for (If those information is available)

- Morphology
 * right now, you have two different headings regarding morphology - "growth and morphology" and "detailed morphology and physiology"
 * I feel that it's not necessary to split those two sections, because as I read it, growth and morphology talks about the conidia, sterigmata, etc., and the detailed morphology also talks about the same stuff. Why don't you combine those points together?
 * Also, overall it seems like the points are a bit scattered. It would be important to group similar information together
 * ie) appearance of the fungus in lab setting, interaction of the fungus with other substances, morphology and size of the fungus - the info is all there, but not really in an organized way

- Ecology
 * you've written that A. clavatus was isolated from dead insects - it would be nice to see some words like 'saptrotrophs'
 * mycotoxin stuff can go under a different category, other than 'habitat and ecology'
 * if the fungus can produce some useful substances for human health (ie. treatment for common-cold, and ribotoxins that can help develop immunotherapy processes for cancer), then instead of putting those points under 'habitat and ecology', why not make a new heading like 'medical uses'?
 * similar to the previous point, the occurrence of extrinsic alveolitis (EAA) caused by your fungus can go under a different heading...ie) diseases
 * all the names of the heading are just a suggestion, but I just felt that some points under 'habitat and ecology' don't belong here


 * also, there is no mention of sexual/asexual reproduction

- References
 * I find that a lot of them are missing either the doi or the ISBN - is it possible to find some of them and include it?
 * for reference 9, who is the author??

Hope these suggestions were helpful. Dhs293 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

HMB436 Peer Review
Hey AdibaR,

You have a ton of information in your article! Very interesting fungus; here's some feedback to consider.


 * The history section is very short, you might want to just condense it into a taxonomy section or combine the two as there's only the one fact. The taxonomy section also contains some history that you could move up to flesh out the first section a bit more.


 * Something you could consider adding to the taxonomy section is what the words aspergillus and clavatus mean (clavatus in latin is nails/having nails; possibly something to do with it's morphology?)


 * Growth section is very good; there are condensed and relevant facts. The growth phase could use a little more detail: you mention rapid growth but under what conditions? Is it always capable of rapid growth or are there optimal conditions for it?


 * While the students in the course may understand a lot of the information in the detailed growth and morphology section, to make the information more accessible providing some comparison or simpler explanations would be nice.


 * I'd recommend splitting the morphology and physiology of the fungus into two different sections; there's enough for you to be able to make the split and still have plenty of content for both. It'd make the information a bit easier to digest.


 * I like the flow of information in the habitat and ecology section, you have a very smooth transition from locations to characteristics of those locations.


 * You should, however, proofread this section as there are some grammatical mistakes, such as "alive and free birds" (free, living birds?) and "exceptionally from dead adult bees" (especially?)


 * You should include a short description of Collembola or a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article so that readers can quickly understand the reference to this organism.


 * This section contains a lot of information that isn't necessarily related to habitat or ecology, most notably the section on medicine derived from clavatus and all of the information on pathology of clavatus. I'd highly recommend splitting this section into two, or maybe even three sections (habitat/ecology and pathology and/or applications)

Overall, good work on the very detailed research; you have a lot of material to work with which is great, focusing information and organizing it is the main thing.

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

Liuqingc (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey! You have a good start on your article. You have found a lot of information. It is organized nicely. I feel like you don’t need to have a detailed morphology and physiology section. You can just separate them into two sections, Morphology and Physiology. The last few points in the Habitat and Ecology section should be placed in a new section labelled either Disease, Pathology or something similar. When I was searching your fungus I found an article addressing Aspergillus clavatus as a potential biomedical application in antimicrobial activity. This something interesting that you can talk about if you find sufficient information on it. Overall, you have a great article!

Bapithra (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)