User talk:XiongP

Welcome!
Hello, XiongP, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Dorsa's peer review
General Comments
 * Overall, I enjoy your article as it contains a lot of detail and is well researched
 * Don't forget to put a lead section in order to summarize the main parts of the article
 * Watch out for grammar mistakes (ie. Wang and Samson were looking)
 * Also watch your direct quoting from sources, try putting them into your own words to avoid plagiarizing

History and Taxonomy
 * This section was very well written with much detail, I enjoy your description of the reclassification
 * You may consider adding some more detail on the new classification (the Colleriella)

Growth and Morphology
 * in this section, you can also include distinguishing features that set this species apart from others in the genus (check out this source that has some features https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/pmc/articles/PMC5832955/)

Physiology
 * Your physiology section has some overlap with your growth and morphology where you are talking about appearance in both
 * I saw in another article, a student created sections within the subheading for the ascomata, asci and ascosphore which helped organize the information
 * You may want to include any pathogenic features, any uses or clinical importance of the fungi (consider making it a separate subheading if applicable)
 * Here's another source that talks about some more metabolism of the fungi ( http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/InboundService.do?customersID=ProQuest&mode=FullRecord&IsProductCode=Yes&product=WOS&Init=Yes&Func=Frame&DestFail=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webofknowledge.com&action=retrieve&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&SID=8AcIjrK6UPflwzJFD17&UT=WOS%3AA1992KK20800009)

Habitat and Ecology
 * This section is thoroughly done, the only suggestion I would have is to build on the fact that the fungi has implications in agriculture (as suggested above you could mention it in a separate section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorsa77 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Dorsa77 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Shi Yi's Peer Review
Hi there!

Your article looks well-organized and on good track to be a great article however I do have a few suggestions. Don't forget an introductory paragraph before your subheadings to highlight the most important parts of your article! The lead section is basically an overview for what your article is about so it might be a good idea to add one in. Also, in the "growth and morphology" subheading, the morphology is spelled wrong. Just double-check with your spelling going forward to decrease the chances of losing marks on small mistakes. In addition, there were a few confusing facts such as "renamed Collariella..." (did you mean that it was renamed to Collariella from Chaetomium?)

I found a couple sources using the name Collariella bostrychodes as well as Chaetomium bostrychodes. Maybe you could look into the organism's pathogenicity as the genus or those related to Chaetomium is known to cause opportunistic diseases. Also, it might be worthwhile to note some of the metabolites that is produced and expand on the organism's habitat (it seems to grow on several specific animal dung in which you can specify in your habitat section. There are also a few other facts that are notable in the few sources that I link below for your organism. What you have right now for your article outline is great however, I would suggest to be more aware of spelling and grammar in order to convey what you really mean to your readers. These are just some of suggestions I have upon peer reviewing your article, I hope it helped! Best of luck to you in writing the final article. :)

Sources:

http://ijat-aatsea.com/pdf/Nov_v4_n2_08/10%20IJAT2008-43-R.pdf

http://www.bcrc.firdi.org.tw/fungi/fungal_detail.jsp?id=FU201505261127

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13225-015-0338-5

Lushiyi81 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Godfrey's Peer Review
Hi Xiong P,

Looking at what you have so far, I think that you’ve done a great job with finding very informative facts regarding your fungus. As Shi Yi mentioned, your introductory paragraph is missing. Based on what you have, I think it would be great to introduce your fungus as a plant pathogen that is also involved in decomposing and recycling nutrients from animal dung. Further details about nutrient recycling can be found in the article “Dung-inhabiting fungi: a potential reservoir of novel secondary metabolites for the control of plant pathogen”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ps.4206

Additionally, while reading another article, “Chaetomium-like fungi causing opportunistic infections in humans: a possible role for extremotolerance”, under the name Chaetomium bostrychodes, I found useful information how the genus Chaetomium may be involved in opportunistic infections in humans. Perhaps you could mention this under the heading “History and taxonomy”. Could this also mean that your fungus is pathogenic? Moreover, I noticed that under the heading growth and morphology, the temperature at which the fungus grows is missing. I think it would also be important to mention the temperature at which the minimum and optimum growth occur.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13225-015-0338-5

I noticed throughout your article that there are not many words that are hyperlinked. I think it would be helpful to hyperlink mycology terms such as ascomata, ascospores, asci, mycelium, etc. Hyperlinking locations and other words that are not commonly used would be a good idea. For instance, ananastamose, asparagin, blood fibrin, peridium, etc.

I would also suggest adding citations at the end of each fact, so it would be easier to look up additional information.

Overall, everything looks great. I hope this helps. Good Luck!

Grey1016 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Simran's Peer Review

 * Remember to add a lead paragraph to your article that gives your readers an overview of the article, without simply repeating what your article is about. Here is a useful resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
 * History and taxonomy: I like how you explained how Collariella bostrychodes was renamed.
 * Growth and morphology: You can add a wikilink for Ascomata and ascospores.
 * The "Physiology" and "Habitat and Ecology" sections were well done and displayed a good use of sources.
 * Resources: Good balance of the types of resources used!
 * You might find page 131 of this article useful: https://ges.rgo.ru/jour/article/view/426/324. It mentions that Collariella bostrychodes has caused the following diseases Onichomikosis, skin infections, peritonitis. Perhaps you can add a section called "Pathogenicity" for this information.
 * Also, I think you can add a lot of internal links to articles that are already on wikipedia to help your readers go through your article. Perhaps go through your article once you have written your final draft and add links for words that are not common knowledge. For example, ascomata or asci.

Some suggestions
Medmyco (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * your draft article is on your user page, not in your sandbox
 * do not use in line citations
 * I fixed your binomial authority but you should check it
 * all Latin names should be italicized
 * try to put scientific jargon into common language (e.g., obovate, turbinate, ampulliform, paraphyses, etc.)
 * what does “dextrinoid” mean?
 * some of the content in you Physiology section seems to belong in Morphology
 * a bunch of things can be linked (e.g., country names like Egypt, India, etc., terms like lignin, methylene blue, etc.)
 * a bunch of your points in Physiology are not cited – do they all belong to Ref 0 or 1?