User talk:Esotericorangepeel

Welcome!
Hello, Esotericorangepeel, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments
If there are no synonyms for your fungus, you can remove the box; Could replace with strain type (if there is one) or input Cephalotheca faveolata into the synonym box I see your subheadings are the authors you’re referencing, which is a good way to organize notes from your sources. At this point, you should consider replacing your current subheadings with topics specific for your fungus. Consider: Physiology (metabolites), mechanisms of pathology (symptoms of infection, # of cases recorded, opportunistic, etc.), habitat and ecology, growth and morphology (Yaguchi 2006), taxonomy and history (where it was identified), etc. Under Lu 2015, you could specify ‘other environmental matter’ just so readers have an idea of what you mean by 'others'. Under Pedromo 2011, as you’re writing out the final draft, you could explain how P. obovatum and your fungus are similar. Don’t forget that before you list shortened P. obovatum, should first introduce its complete scientific name, which also needs to be italicized. Under Suh 2005, it might be confusing to readers not educated on the topic what D1/D2 is, you should consider linking a wiki article to that or to 28S rRNA Overall, all points made seem to be of a neutral POV, and not persuading anyone into accepting certain ideas Although a lot of information was found from sources Lu and Yaguchi, there’s still an overall good balance of the different sources cited! You also used good sources, which all seem to be scientific articles, or case studies. Books are one of the better sources, you could consider looking for content from books I'm not sure if the source Tsang 2017 is an article, book, etc. I think you might need to complete referencing for that There seems to be minimal information from Sutton 2008. After skimming through the source, the authors describe cleistotheca as dark and ciliated, which you could incorporate under subheading Morphology.. They also described the ascospores as hyaline to brown, which you could incorporate under morphology as well. You could consider linking wiki articles to certain words, just so readers can click on it if they are not sure what it is (ex. Bcl-2, amphotericin B, 28S rRNA, etc.)Kikikhoun (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cephalotheca foveolata
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cephalotheca foveolata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wolverine Esotericorangepeel (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)