User talk:SaniyaSayed4/sandbox

To start off, your lead is very well written! You could consider linking Citrus aurantium to the ‘bitter orange’ wiki page. Your lead could also highlight important parts about its pathogenicity and treatments, as the lead should reflect the most important information and give a good overview of the rest of the article. You could link ‘thrombus’ to the ‘thrombus’ Wiki article. I like how you explained what Mucormycosis is, what angiogenesis is, what tissue necrosis is, etc. following their introductions. It makes following your article much easier. Under Pathogenicity, what is CotH protein? You could write out its full name then put CotH in brackets. You could consider linking neutropenia to the ‘neutropenia’ wiki article. If possible, you could expand on the case of neutropenic patient - What were their symptoms, what tests were used to identify the infection, etc. This article 'Firebrats, Thermobia domestica, aggregate in response to the microbes Enterobacter cloacae and Mycotypha microspora' (Woodbury 2013)could be a possible source for you to reference. The article states Mycotypha microspora arrests firebrats from aggregating, which gives some insight on their habitats your fungus may like; It also indicates a symbiotic relationship as well, which could be some quality content. This article 'Horizontal transmission of the microbial symbionts Enterobacter cloacae and Mycotypha microspora to their firebrat host' (Woodbury 2013) could also be one for you to reference. It provides insight on a relationship b/w firebrat and M. microspora; There is also more info about M. Microsporangia growing on faeces that you could incorporate under Habitat. There is a decent balance in the different sources being cited! I also like how you're discussing from a neutral POV, as you're not trying to persuade any ideas on anyone.Kikikhoun (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead evaluation I like your lead, it starts of really well with important straight forward information that provides the reader with basic information about the fungus. The only comment i have is that maybe the last sentence doesn't really need to be there, as that information seems too specific and would be better just brought up later on, it seems a bit put of place. Content evaluation I loved reading all your points, there was lots of great information, that was supported with sources and all was relevant to the header it was under. Tone and balance evaluation your content all seem sot be neutral and unbiased, the only comment i could make is that in your last point you state that combination therapy works better than mono therapy, maybe when formatting your paragraphs just say studies show... just so it doesn't seem like you are making a claim. Sources and references evaluation your sources are working fine for me, they mostly are very up to date and you have provided many great sources to back up your claims. Organization evaluation your points are all very interesting and provide the reader with lots of greta information on the topic, but my only comment is that maybe you could divide the morphology and growth into 2 separate headers as they are a bit different and it would be easier for the reader to find what they are looking for faster. other than that your information is all clear and concise. I would also suggest creating another header for "human cases" or something like that just because in both the treatment and the pathogenicity header you talk about the same case so maybe it would be worth talking about it on its own. New Article Evaluation You had lots of reliable sources. the article followed the pattern of out articles and flowed well. Overall evaluation Overall your article seems great, and it I'm sure once you have put it into paragraphs and completed formatting it will be a great! wish you luck on the rest of the assignment. SarahBoujan (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)SarahBoujan

Peer Review
Hi there!

Firstly, I want to say I think you’ve done an excellent job on this outline. The format is clear to follow, and each point has been made from a wealth of resources (journal and books, even including some more recent works). It looks like your outline is very well though-out and detailed, and I think it’s a great start to your article.

To begin, your lead section is very well-stated and gives a great intro. I noticed you included history into the lead section (I can see that historical information is a bit sparse) and I think what has resulted is an informative intro in the place of a historical section. One quick point to make about your lead is just re-wording the last sentence. Maybe talking about the fungus being found in both outdoor decaying matter as well as within hospital settings, instead of just listing off the places its been found. Again, that’s just a stylistic choice but I think it may flow nicer. Maybe something like “… has been recorded in wood decay, excrement, wound sites, and hospital settings.”

Beyond the lead section, the addition of pathogenicity and treatment subheadings was a great choice. I do however wonder if you could expand on the notion of where infections tend to be contracted, if you can find any information on that. Alternatively, focusing on the carbon preference of the fungus and geographic location could be used in lieu. Lastly, I did notice that many of your references were journal articles, so I decided to spend a bit of time looking into book resources online. Here are a few sources I was able to find:

1)	https://books.google.ca/books?id=swjNCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA89&dq=mycotypha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiix5qj-MnlAhWrd98KHZwdAsIQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=mycotypha&f=false the book “Biology of Microfungi” which has a brief passage on growth mediums that your species may be found on. I thought this could be of use in your growth conditions section. It also mentions the species as mesophilic and can be thermotolerant

2)	https://books.google.ca/books?id=gpzZ-PoWRfkC&pg=PA96&dq=mycotypha+microspora&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5_8Lh-snlAhVxUd8KHZGyBbsQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=mycotypha%20microspora&f=false this book “environmental and microbial relationships” also mentions your fungus in passing to say that it is can grow under small amounts of oxygen and in the presence of nitrogen, it also requires nutrients (fatty acids, sterols, etc). Again possible use in growth conditions.

3)	https://books.google.ca/books?id=0cgGCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&dq=mycotypha+microspora&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5_8Lh-snlAhVxUd8KHZGyBbsQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=mycotypha%20microspora&f=false If this is any interest to you, it looks like some algae naturally produce their own toxin to your fungus, and they have even included the structure. I think this would fit well into a section on ecosystem, as some plants seems to have developed this molecule in response.

On a final note, just a reminder to hyperlink out to other articles on your final piece. This should make it easier for readers to follow what you’re writing about. Best of luck!

Hopewallen (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification
I think 'cat-tail-like' in this sense relates to the derivation of the genus name - Myco'typha' where 'typha' refers to the genus Typha. Medmyco (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)