User talk:Aoi.nishino/Sistotrema brinkmannii/Brooke S Connolly Peer Review

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Aoi.nishino Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aoi.nishino/sandbox Lead

Lead:

The leading sentence clearly states that a fungus, Sistotrema brinkmannii, will be discussed within the article. The lead concisely states some of the the articles major sections by giving a brief interlude. However, I feel as if the organization of categories may need to be switched around. The first sentence states the habitats that Sistotrema brinkmannii grows in (soil, moss and wood), thus I recommend moving the subcategory of 'Habitat' closer to the beginning of the article. I would also recommend separating Habitat from Reproduction, as those can both be independent sections with their own relevant information. I appreciate that the author has included some general information about the fungus, without exploring too much depth within the lead. Great job! I noticed a few minor grammatical mistakes that could be altered to improve the flow of the article. For example, the sentence "This fungus grows rapidly on MEA (malt extract agar)" should be switched to "This fungus grows rapidly on malt extract agar (MEA)". Abbreviations typically come after the written form. As well, I would change the word researches to research. Ultimately, you did a great job writing the lead. I think you did a great job at incorporating other links into your paragraph, in order to minimize explanations of irrelevant topics!

Subcategory "History and taxonomy" I noticed that the second statement... "This fungus produces β-1,3/1,4-glucanase, an enzyme that converts Avicel to glucose.[8]" is more relative to the physiology of the fungus, than the history and might flow better in that section of the article. As well, I would consider moving the next two points into the Growth and morphology section as it pertains to the sizes of spores!

Subcategory "Growth and morphology" The first point is very similar to another point that you made in the first subcategory. I recommend putting both ideas together in one part of the article to avoid repetition. Otherwise, this paragraph is well-formulated and I appreciate your use of the different forms!

The next few paragraphs seem very well organized to me and I believe once they are put into full-sentences, the article will be well on it's way! All content that you provided in your outline is relevant to the topic and seemingly up-to-date! You have also done a great job at making your tone throughout the article extremely neutral. I did not feel like you were arguing any specific points, but instead just stating factual information. I noticed that you have many resources and references as well. Great! The sources seem to be accurate to any available information published on this species. As well, the links you have included are functional! You have done a great job with organization and formatting the article. Everything is in the correct place. I would include a caption with the photo you included to give a view of what is being visualized.

My overall impression of your article is very high, I'm excited to reread it once it is fully written!

Brooke S Connolly (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Brooke S Connolly