User talk:CUIQINGY/sandbox

Cynthia's Peer Review
Hi CUIQINGY,

I was reading over your article's outline for Penicillium spinulosum and it looks like you have a well-organized, comprehensive outline! Penicillium spinulosum seems to have a lot of distinct characteristics, and I would say you've done a great job covering many of these details! Here are some suggestions that I hope may be helpful for you as you continue to work on your article:

Lead
 * I like that you presented the explanation for the latin name.
 * Remember that the lead gives the reader an brief overview of the most important information about your fungus. Considering that most people do not read beyond this part of the article, I like to think of this as the mini "Abstract" of the article; it should present the reader with a clear idea of what you fungus is overall. As you continue to finalize your article, I recommend looking at this page for more tips for creating a good lead: How to create and manage a good lead section. I hope this will be helpful.

History and taxonomy
 * You've done a great job in covering all of the important details in your fungi's discovery.
 * One thing that I found unclear upon first reading your article was the term "monoverticillate". Although there is no Wiki page for this term, it may be important to define this as a naming system unique to Penicilli.
 * As a little note, I would recommend adding the titles "Dr." in front of Thom and Raper's names (Dr. Scott fixed this for me in my own article).
 * Also, you misspelled the word "studied" in the last point of this section! Otherwise, this section looks great thus far.

Growth and morphology
 * This section seems to do a good job thoroughly covering all of the conidia morphology and related structures.
 * It's good that you keep a logical flow of related points on a structure together. Keep in mind that when you convert your points to full sentences, it must be clear which structure you are describing as your fourth line that reads "White to cream or faintly pink on reverse" is unclear structure you are describing (colony or conidiophore).
 * It may be helpful to include a wiki link to the conidiophore page for the reader to find more on this structure.
 * Don't forget to use a non-breaking space between a number and its corresponding units.

Physiology
 * You've covered a variety of physiological markers of Penicillium spinulosum that look to be explained very well and in sufficient detail for an outline.
 * As general rule, refrain from putting the full reference citation within your text in the article. It makes the information difficult to read in "edit source mode"
 * You mention here that Penicillium spinulosum has no mycotoxin production, however, the reference that you used here may be a bit outdated (2002). I found 2 articles that present the case for P. spinulosum being capable to produce them.
 * One article (published 1 year later) describes a mixed culture of Penicillium spinulosum and P. glabrum as capable of producing mycotoxin. Here is the link to this article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168160503000862.
 * This article (2004), also describes Penicillium spinulosum as being a potentially toxic micromycete species (see Figure 2 in the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf88/45ed8cac419ef6e88eed433fa0a0381dfbac.pdf). See if you can find more recent articles on the matter.
 * I would be sure to present this in order to provide a balanced view on Penicillium spinulosum's ability to produce mycotoxins.

Habitat and ecology
 * You've done well in describing the specific places Penicillium spinulosum can be isolated.
 * To expand, try thinking about Penicillium spinulosum's larger habitat. It doesn't hurt to mention that it is an indoor fungus.
 * You may also want to describe in which parts of the world (which countries) Penicillium spinulosum is often found.

Pathogenicity
 * Good use of indented subpoints to organize the case studies you described!
 * Don't forget to include the ref tags after all of your cited points. Although you mention the first sentence of your 3rd point as being "reported by Anderson et al. in 1957" you forgot to include the ref tag! If you introduce a new idea it's important to cite this the first time and again once you mention a new source.
 * Although it is convention in scientific papers to use the APA in-text citation (Last name, Year), this is not the case for Wikipedia articles! Simply include the ref tag at the end of your cited idea.

References
 * I noticed that 2 of your references has an error with the date. I came across this problem myself. To fix this, make sure you are putting the "date" after the Title and before the Publisher for books, and at the very end for electronic journals. Also be sure to include spaces before and after the year like this: |date= 1996 |. Always use the Cite journal/book template to avoid any confusion.

Overall, you have a very thorough, clear, comprehensive article. I hope this was all helpful. Good luck working on your article! :) Cynthia.somai (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

HeidiZL's Peer Review
Hi CUIQINGY, your outline is strong and well-organized with a logical order. Hope my points are useful!

History and taxonomy:


 * I think this section is clear and comprehensive enough for readers. You did a good job in comparing key features of different species within the genus, which really helps readers to distinguish these fungi.

Growth and Morphology:


 * You did a lot researches and included many detailed morphological features about the fungus. I think it could be more easy for readers to read if you organize these information with some sub-titles.
 * It could be more attractive and interesting to put some images of Penicillium spinulosum in this section.

Physiology:


 * You could expand this section a little by adding features of fungal metabolism.
 * This article describes that P. spinulosum could generate metabolites with the potential to down-regulate enzyme activity. Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28220202
 * This paper shows the phenolic metabolites produced during glucose metabolism are responsible for the color of the fungus. Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1155879

Habitat and Ecology:


 * I found an interesting paper that studies the ability of fungi to live in extremely acid soil and shows important anti-acid compounds they produce in the acid soil. Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27687871

Pathogenicity:


 * This section could be expanded by including virulence factors produced by the fungus or possible anti-fungal treatments.
 * This article shows that potential virulence factors could be induced by the interaction between amoebae and P. spinulosum, and states the importance of amoebae in the fungal pathogeneis. Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17607727
 * I found a paper is useful if you are looking for the treatments or drugs with fungistatic activities. Here is the link: https://getit.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/getit?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+fungistatic+activity+of+methyl+and+propyl+hydroxybenzoates+and+a+mixture+of+these+against+Penicillium+spinulosum&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+pharmacy+and+pharmacology&rft.au=GERRARD%2C+H+N&rft.au=PARKER%2C+M+S&rft.au=BULLOCK%2C+K&rft.date=1962-02-01&rft.issn=0022-3573&rft.eissn=2042-7158&rft.volume=14&rft.spage=103&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F13898038&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F13898038&rft.externalDocID=13898038
 * Here are some papers that discuss important proinflammatory mediators produced by the fungus with inflammatory and cytotoxic activities. Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12515684 ;https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910531 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeidiZL (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with your assignments!

HeidiZL (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions

 * do not use in-line citing
 * terms like Monovertcillata don’t stand on their own, it should be ‘’Penicillium’’ Section Monovertcillata (or whatever the taxonomic level is if it isn’t Section)
 * try to use common words instead of scientific jargon (e.g., velutinous, floccose, fasciculate, etc.)
 * echonulate?
 * content looks good
 * well done so far!

Medmyco (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)