User talk:Nancyy.yang/sandbox

Shi Yi's Peer Review
Hi there!

Your article looks incredibly promising so far as there are so much information and facts. I like the many different subheadings you had to organize your facts however I think you could condense a couple of them into one section (just because a couple subheadings only seem to have a few facts and could be included in other more bulkier sections). In my opinion, it would make more sense if "Taxonomy" could be included with "History", "Genetics" with "Morphology" and the "Prevalence" facts could just be included under "Habitat & Ecology" without its actual subheading. Although you have so much to write about in your body paragraphs, I feel like maybe your lead section could use a couple more facts. Since it is the overview of what the rest of the article will talk about and highlight the most important, it seems a bit underwhelming compared to all the facts you have put together. It may be worth a thought to add a few more important points.

Also, I did a bit more research on your organism and it seems like C. herbarum has a big association with allergy and asthma in its pathogenicity. I found a couple links and papers that may be worth reading to see if there's anything to add to your article:

https://www.moldbacteria.com/mold/cladosporium.html

https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1978.tb01503.x

https://academic.oup.com/mmy/article-abstract/11/3/251/1655310?redirectedFrom=fulltext

All in all, your article outline looks great and these were just some of my suggestions in improving the article. Hope this helped! :)

Lushiyi81 (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Belauoft's peer review
Hello Nancyy.yang,

Below are my suggestions on what I think you can add to you wiki article. If anything is unclear, please feel free to reach out to me. I hope my suggestions come in handy.

In your  taxobox  under the synonyms of your assigned species you had cited the sources you attained the information from, this is not needed. In this section simple include the synonym along with the year it was first coined. Like so, Byssus herbarum (1815) and rather place the complete citation in the  references  section.

 Lead  I enjoyed reading your lead section. Try to stay away from using terms like exceedingly... you want to maintaining a neutral view point. Additionally, the term biodeteriogen is a word that I have never came across, I think it is useful to define the word for the reader, place its definition in brackets.

 History and Prevalence  You used the word commonest, try a high percentage; in efforts to make the view point more neutral.

Built point 2: Used  extraordinarily numerous I don't think you need to have  extraordinarily , once again this is because I feel that it adds a layer of biasis to your article. I can tell you are trying to be descriptive, however, I don't think the is needed in a wiki article.

Built point 5: I had a hard time comprehending the point you were trying to make, it needs to be re-written. Maybe you could write the following: After the discovery of this specie it has been named X, Y, and Z however,  C. herbarum  is the species name it is most commonly referred to as.

Built point 7 should be placed after built point 3.

Last built move it to above the first point - I feel that this would work better because the last point gives an overview of this section.

 Taxonomy  This section contains little information, get ride of it and place the information under  history and prevalence .

 Growth  I ran into a similar problem, you don't have to write degrees celsius if you input the following into your sandbox, temperature &-deg-;-C. Note in your sandbox remove all the hyphens, there should be no space where the hyphens are! I wrote it this way so you could know the formula. For instance, if you follow the format this is what you should get: 50 &deg;C - 60 &deg;C. This is more compact and visually appealing than writing out 50 degrees celsius. Please make sure you change this for all the incidence you talk about temperature.

Built point 5: you wrote " as do increases in carbon dioxide content to 10%.[3]" it would flow better if you write, " as does increasing carbon dioxide content to 10%.[3]"

 Morphology  Please define what CYA and MEA stand for and their function.

 Physiology  You do not have much information, would it be possible to integrate the information under another section?

 Habitat and Ecology 

This section needs to be better organized I was thinking of placing all the information that has to do with the season that  C. herbarum  is most commonly observed in at the start, then where it can ecologically be found, lastly what it grows on ( type of food etc.).

Built point 1: Please elaborate and provide further clarification. You have the following written "  Cladosporium herbarium  average concentration (cfu/m^3) on “outdoor air on roof” is 298, and “outdoor air at grade level” is 261.[5]" What exactly does outdoor air at grade level mean?

Built point 7: How is this point relevant to the specie? Is  C.herbarium  found in extreme habitats? If so, be sure to deliberately state that. At the moment you have the following written: " The following can be cited as extreme habitations: peat bogs, conifer swamps, lowland soils, wet prairie soil, soil under heath vegetation, soil with tundra as well as with chaparral vegetation, salt marsh, and estuarine sediments with high salinity, dunes, desert soils, and other very dry areas, a guano cave, uranium mine, activated sludge, a river bed, fresh and seawater, but not in highly polluted aquatic environments.[3]"

Use the abbreviated form of  Cladosporium herbarium :  C. herbarium  the unabbreviated form is too lengthy.

 Genetics  This section does not have much information, would be possible to get ride of it and place the information under  physiology ?

 Pathogenicity  What does BSL-1 stand for?

 References  Good use of reliable sources, you used textbooks and journal articles, great work!

I hope this helps! Belauoft (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Polly's Peer Review

 * Your lead works well but you might want to change your wording to be more neutral, avoid using “exceedingly” and opt to just call it a commonly found microorganism
 * “It is a conspicuous biodeteriogen, both because of its wide metabolic capability and dark coloration” – this seems like a weird point to include in the lead, either define what a biodeteriogen is or include this point in another section
 * You can add the range of habitats it's found on to better help introduce and summerize the article
 * Your sections seem to be unorganized and could be better condensed
 * Your taxonomy section is rather small, you could integrate it with History instead of leaving it as a single section, unless you plan on expanding it.
 * The Genetics section seems to have the same problem as well, either expand the information or include it with Physiology or Morphology
 * Habitat and ecology seems to overlap with your History and Prevalence section, I would suggest integrating Taxonomy with History and reorganizing the Prevalence facts with Habitat and ecology or create a new section for Prevalence all together that’s sperate from History or Habitats and Ecology
 * For your physiology section, there’s a lot of missing information. What you mean by a “good” starch utilization? what is considered the optimum temperature for cellulose decomposition? What are the different states? What is the human substance and what’s the implications? How does the environment influence the spore discharge?
 * Again, please use more neutral terms and avoid using "good" as a description
 * Your points for Habitat and ecology seem to be in no particular order which makes it rather difficult to follow
 * “Cladosporium herbarum average concentration (cfu/m^3) on “outdoor air on roof” is 298, and “outdoor air at grade level” is 261” – this point seems to share no relevance to the rest of the section, an explanation is need or simply omit the fact as, again, it simply doesn’t flow with the rest of the section
 * You describe the fungi as xerophilic but also include that it’s prevalent in moist soils in the same sentence, that’s contradictory so please clarify. Do you mean it has the potential to be an xerophile?
 * Why did you include a list of extreme habitations in this section? If this is to describe the habitations that C. herbarum can be found in, you need to rephrase it btter, such as “these are the extreme habitations of C. herbarum”

XiongP (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pathogenicity section seems to again be ill organized
 * “Spoilage of stored fruit is said to be possible, but this proceeds slowly and is thus of only minor economic important; injuries have also been observed on stored tomatoes” – not related to pathogenicity, move it to ecology
 * Describe or name the endotoxin that helps cause lesions on horses. Is it the same as the one that is reported to be a possible agent of keratitis that you included in a separate point? If so, you can group the two facts together
 * Beyond have allergen components, your fungi seem to play an important role in allergies and seems to pathogenic in immune-comprised patients, this seems to be an important fact to expand on
 * Consider reading this for more information, it goes into detail about the specifics of how it causes an allergic response and the spore discharge - https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/58862
 * Overall, please check your spelling and be consistent with using C. herbarum, it would make reading your article easier and less wordy

Maria's peer review
Hi, your article has lots of information! Great! I have a few comments Lead :

• Very good! I like your lead section. I find it’s eye-catching and interesting.

Taxonomy:

• I wouldn’t use the article to talk about the genus in general, but about the species in specific, as there is already another page that’s in charge of talking about the genus in general.

Growth:

• It might be good to state by the means of what techniques the species can be isolated

• Your statement about the germination of conidia seems a little confusing in the wording. Is the germination of conidia unaffected? Or is it inhibited by sporotastic factors? Maybe you could rephrase it the sentence to make it more clear.

• I feel it’s somewhat redundant to state that “growth can occur at -10 degrees Celsius” and later state it can occur at -6 C. Also, you’ve repeated this and other temperature statements several times.

Physiology:

• Here you state that autolysis of mycelium yields a human substance. Which human substance?

Overall I love your article! And I also love you’ve included a Genetics section into it. That is interesting information often overlooked. You’ve included lots of interesting information and you’ve got a lot of material to make a great article. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinor2 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Medmyco (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * references and formatting look OK
 * some terms could be converted in to more common language, e.g., intercalary swellings, geniculate, dendritic, velutinous, floccose, etc
 * sporotastic factors ??
 * I would think that Mycosphaerella tassiana would also be a synonym?
 * great content