User talk:Anikachowdhury/sandbox

Great intro. Nice organization and illustrations.

I notice that your source for the quote "entire Italian-speaking districts exist" is >20 years old. I wonder if it's possible to find out if it's still true? If not, you might need to rephrase to indicate that it WAS true then.

You provide some useful Demographics info, but it's in your section labeled "Status." Please reorganize sections according to the Ethnolinguistic Vitality model. A section on Institutional Support will need to be added.Naomi TBB199 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Check capitalization in references. You quote Clivios but that reference is missing from the references at the bottom.

Good organization! The intro flows nicely and introduces the status section well. In the section about status you give some demographic information about number of Italian speakers. I feel like this might be more suited to the demographics section of the ethnolinguistic vitality model. The picture you included is really good and adds to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtsalmon (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The information provided here is very interesting, but it would be better if you could add some pictures in wikipedia also:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitong M (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nav's Peer Review
The structure and organization of your sandbox is very impressive!

In the lead, you describe where your fungus habitats and then go on to specify where exactly this occurs and in conditions are most optimal for it to grow. But then later on, you describe in your "Growth and morphology" section, your "History and taxonomy" section, and somewhat in your "Physiology" section the optimal growth temperature. Other than that, you have a good balance of information under all of your headings!

Also, if there is more to add, I think it would be a good idea to add a little more detail in your lead. Because you add that it's products in the food industry are generally recognized as safe but then discuss in your "Disease in humans" section that it is able to cause disease.

I think you did a really good job with citing your information and not overusing one particular source too much. And I also think you did a really good job with hyperlinking your words to the correct page! Good job! Navlall (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Godfrey's Peer Review
The outline of the page is very well organized

The species is well introduced and gives the readers a great introduction to the significance and function of the fungus. However, the introduction lacks citation. Citation should be given after each fact or at the end of the sentence.

The information under History and taxonomy is very informative. But I think that mentioning when it was first described should be the first point in that heading, providing with citation at the end. Also, the fact “saprophytic and opportunistic pathogen” should be stated in a different category such as physiology

Under the heading growth and morphology, the facts are well stated. However, I think there are some facts from the heading Physiology that should be transferred over to growth and morphology. For instance, “rhizoids medium sized”, “smaller sporangia and spores than Rhizopus stolinifer”, “sporangiospores up to 1000-1500microm in length and 13-15microm in width”. I think that these facts are more morphological rather than physiological.

In the Disease in Humans heading, I think information regarding how it infects humans should be stated. Additionally, since it is a fungus that infects humans, are there any antifungal treatment that should be mentioned?

Overall, the facts that were stated were very informative, especially the facts under industrial uses. I think the next step forward would be to make small minor adjustments and move things around and expand the facts for a better flow.Grey1016 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucas Lisitsky's Peer Review
General Comments
 * It is wonderful that you were able to procure such a great image. If it were up to me, every species article on Wikipedia would have one.
 * You should be aware that your caption says Rhizopus Oryzae instead of Rhizopus oryzae

History and taxonomy
 * It's great that you were able to find info about how Rh. oryzae in early history!
 * I searched for your article, but there was no record of such an article ever published in Studies in Mycology according to Elsevier. It might be beneficial if you were to link to the article in your reference list. If you read it in print, you could also indicate that in your references.
 * Here is a link to another article that mentions a bit about the species' uses in Eastern drinks, but I would love to read more about what you've described in your article.
 * You should provide a reference to its description in 1895. If you can't find the original article, you should reference one that mentions it.
 * Rh. oryzae's nature as saprophyte and opportunistic pathogen probably belongs in the ecology section.
 * Given the number of synonyms, it is good why you provided justification as to why Rh. oryzae is the most popular.

Growth and morphology
 * Excellent descriptions of colony growth and appearance
 * It is also great that you mentioned the conditions under which it enters its anamorphic and teleomorphic stages.
 * You could mention as an aside that this is important for their use in food and drink preparation.

Physiology
 * Your descriptions of their morphological structures (sporangia, sporangiophores etc.) are excellent.
 * However, they would be better placed in the Growth and morphology section, rather than the physiology section. Morphology refers to structure. Physiology typically refers to function.
 * It is great that you describe their molecular processes.
 * Given that most of the physiology you describe is molecular, I would consider combining this section with the Industrial use section so you can tie Rh. oryzae's metabolism to its commercial application

Disease in humans
 * It may be worth elaborating on the symptoms and most common treatments of mucormycosis
 * Here is a review article that goes into detail about Rh. oryzae infection and treatment!

Industrial use
 * Excellently done. Again, I would consider merging this section with your research on Rh. oryzae's molecular physiology to really tie it all together.

Synonyms
 * Mama mia
 * Good job on adding that link. It might be worth exploring into whether the two articles might be worth merging one day.

Excellent work! I'm confident that your final article will be one of the best in the class from what I've seen. If you need any further help, let me know!

Lucas.lisitsky (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions

 * references look OK
 * I don’t think you need to include the vast number of synonyms in the main body of the article. I would pull out a selection of them, perhaps the ones that are included in references you have examines, and just include those in the taxobox
 * it seems like you maybe could have added more facts since this is a fungus about which a lot is known
 * so tempeh is one traditional use, are there others? (there is probably a wiki article on tempeh)
 * get rid of the external links
 * what is appalnate?
 * don’t refer to the fungus as just “Oryzae”, the proper name is always the binomial, but you can abbreviate the genus to one letter if you have already spelled the entire name out in the preceding text

Medmyco (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)