User talk:Angelajhyb/Chaetomium perlucidum/Brooke S Connolly Peer Review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Angelajhyb Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angelajhyb/Chaetomium_perlucidum

Lead:

The first sentence of the lead clearly states the organism that the article will be written on. However, I would split the facts up into two separate sentences to break down the different categories and make the article flow a little more. For example, the first sentence would remain unchanged, but end after the organisms natural habitat, the soil and stems of dead plants. Then I would provide a new sentence stating the temperatures that Chaetomium perlucidum is able to thrive. This way, the second point of other environments that this fungus can be found upon (e.g. hair) can be correctly placed while talking about the habitat. The article will feel more smooth to read with specific concept kept together. I enjoyed that you mentioned human pathogenesis in the introductory paragraph because it captures the importance of this fungus right from the start. My only piece of advice would be to also include a sentence referring to the fungus having different morphologies, thus preparing the reading for that section of the article. I ultimately feel as if the lead is quite strong and will actively engage the audience.

Morphology:

I appreciate that you divided the morphology category into subcategories. This definitely makes it easier to read and understand. I do recommend searching for at least one more source that mentions morphological features of the fungus, so provide more depth into the information. I found a lot of great books in Gerstein library that included lots of information on morphology, it might be a good idea to cross check that your one source is accurate! I noticed that one of the subheadings included a capitalization on 'Ascospores', where it should be lower case.

Pathogenicity:

I like that you added subheadings here as well, but recommend including another for 'Treatment' because you have quite a few facts that could make up another separate category! I also appreciate the use of factual information, your tone is very informative and does not lead the audience to believe in a viewpoint. All context seems relevant and up-to-date!

Tone:

You have maintained a neutral tone throughout the entire article thus far! Great job. You do not have any biased claims and focused on factual statements.

Sources:

The source seem to be linked well and working. The second and third source seem to be from the same website, thus may only need to be counted as one single source. I highly recommend checking out the library medical mycology section to see if you can find this fungus in any of the sources there.

Organization: I like your organization! You did a great job with creating appropriate headings and subheadings. I did notice that the first 'heading' you used, was actually for your introductory paragraph on the species, which I believe may be unnecessary because the article itself is on the specific fungus. Therefore, if you change that to just an introductory paragraph, your subheading will be their own entities (e.g. 1. History, 2. Morphology, etc, instead of 1.1 and 1.2).

Format:

Your grammar seems to all be good! I noticed a few minor errors in the formatting of the headings and subheadings. Only the first word of the heading should be capitalized, therefore I would change "Farming In Soil and Crops", "Mature Ascospores" and "Mode of Transmission and Infection" to the correct format!

Overall, great job! You have found a lot of great facts to make this article. Your organization skills make the article flow very well and not become confusing. Good luck with the final draft!

Brooke S Connolly (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Brooke S Connolly