User talk:Kurtwurt/sandbox

A couple of notes on organization and structure. I would reword the second statement under History and Taxonomy to “Although similar in appearance to the endolithic black fungi from Antarctica, this fungus is quite phylogenetically distinct”. Remove finally from third statement, same heading. For Growth and Morphology, try to organize it in a way where each element is distinct. For the first half speak on growth and the second on morphology (Unlike what you did with the first point). Also, for the first time a term is used, use the full term not the acronym. Break up the temperature ranges in your second point under physiology to clearly distinguish the range for when the fungi grow and the range where proteins are produced. For the statement “more about astrological relevance as a model organism” I looked at the source, and they do not mention anything about astrology. I also don’t believe astrology is accepted as a field of science.

For sources I would suggest, Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems: Diversity published by Springer (2017). See page 353. --DanyalUni (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanyalUni (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I really like how you organized your headings, it allows for a smoother read. Also, I really like your "Physiology" section and how detailed it is. Nice work writing in a simple and neutral tone.

I have a few suggestions that may help improve your article. First, remember to link the key words to associating Wikipedia pages to help individuals who have limited fungal knowledge. You repeated the same reference twice, so you should remove one of them. Also, either describe what a black fungus is or link it to a Wikipedia page. I saw that most of your sources are articles, I recommend including a source that is more reliable such as a textbook to further enhance your article. I found a textbook called "Yeast in Natural Ecosystems: Diversity" by Pietro Buzzini, Marc-André Lachanceand Andrey Yurkov which can provide more information for the Habitat and Ecology section. It contains information on the ability of your fungus to survive and live in extreme conditions such as Antarctica and other regions with similar and different conditions. Link: https://books.google.ca/books?id=9M04DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA353&dq=Friedmanniomyces+endolithicus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX84jfwsjlAhXmx1kKHbgVADkQ6AEISzAF#v=onepage&q=Friedmanniomyces%20endolithicus&f=false

You should try separating your information under your Growth and morphology heading. Either create subheadings, "Growth" and "Morphology", to distinctly separate the information or just add a space between them. It would be great to add more content to each of those sections as well.

Under your Physiology heading, when describing the temperature fo growth, instead of writing "grows best at", say "optimal growth in ___".

One of the references you used, "Ecology and biology of microfungi from Antarctic rocks and soils" contains useful information you did not include in your outline. For instance, it says that your fungus grows endolithically in pegamatite (which is rock), in the black and white zones, in Antarctica. This kind of information can add more content in your Habitat and ecology section. Also, there is more information about the morphology and growth of your fungus in that resource, such as: a dematiaceous fungus that produces blackish brown mycelium and spores.

I know you wrote about exopolysaccharides in your "Physiology" section about its role in protection against freezing; however, it would also be great if you could that exopolysaccharides are found surrounding F.endolithicus multicellular conidia under you "Growth and Morphology" section (this was found in your second reference). I say this because you do not have any information on what type of spore or reproduction your fungus dose. I suggest including that your fungus undergoes asexual reproduction to produce conidia, and either link fungal asexual reproduction to an existing Wikipedia page or add a small description (e.g. mitosis).

Overall, I believe you have a solid outline which can help you create a great article. I hope my feedback helps!

Kimchaem (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions
In addition to the foregoing points, make sure as you develop your full article that you use correct notation for units, e.g., 'degrees Celsius' should be '°C'. You can refer to the Wikipedia style reference for more suggestions on this Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. This species is described as a 'meristematic' fungus. I wonder if you could dig into what 'meristematic' means in this sense and use that information to help build a description that might better help the reader visualize what it looks like. Lastly, the Pacelli paper is really interesting, and I remember it caused a stir when it was published. I remember it was even proposed somewhere that the radioresistance and up-regulated growth seen upon exposure to high levels of gamma could be reinterpreted to suggest that the fungus somehow was able to derive metabolic energy from ionizing radiation. I'm not sure I agree, but this finding was definitely interesting and could benefit from a more fulsome discussion in your article. Medmyco (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)