User talk:Wshepherdmyco/Podospora appendiculata/Dclemenzi Peer Review

First off, I would like to compliment the obvious effort you put into this outline. The research into 13 different sources is very clear in the sheer amount of quantity of information you have down in your sandbox. Perhaps it may not be available however I do believe some history into your fungus would provide for a strong foundation to add the copious amounts of the facts you have pertaining to your fungus. Conversely to my fungus, your fungus seems to be well-researched and I do believe that laying a foundation on the genus' features and characteristics can provide more insight into where your fungus comes from. The information you have provided is very well constructed and I feel as though your headings/headers can be more broad and potentially can have more sub-headings within to potentially help those interested in your fungus keep track of specifics (for example, growth and morphology can perhaps have a section strictly about the reproduction process of your fungus. In your habitat and ecology heading, perhaps you can add a bit about the extraction process or who it was discovered by and where. The anti-fungal properties of the fungus and are rather interesting in the competitive sector of fungi. With your 13 articles and tons of bullet points, I think you should reevaluate the efficacy of some points and their liaisons into other facts. Of course, with time and completion the article will be more cohesive. The addition of a lead section before the headings can provide for some good insight into what readers will know themselves to be getting into.

Also, Id like to add that you can add more hyperlinks to coprophilous fungi for those who may not know what it means or may be further interested in that topic. Once the full composition of your article will be completed I look forward to reading this article and comparing it to other coprophilous fungi articles done by students in this class.