User talk:Yourreason/sandbox

The article was very informative and descriptive, covering many examples of the importance of mycangia in organisms. The article was very insightful, and it was apparent that the author spent much time formulating this and putting the information into his own words. The importance of coverage of this topic has been made very apparent by the author as well. The references are very diverse, well-chosen, and reliable. I have included several comments and suggestions to improve the article. Overall, it is a very well put together article.

Lead section: In the introductory paragraph, the author defines mycangium and gives examples of insect species with this structure. Since examples are provided this early in the article, it would also be beneficial to give examples of locations on the body where the mycangium is often found. The author might even wish to include these examples in the body of the text instead of the introduction. They would fit in well with and increase the length of the “Function” section.

Content: These are some minor changes that will help with the article. In the “Origin” section, it would be a good idea to indicate who “Batra” is and include a first name if available. In the “Function” section, it might be a good idea to provide a little more information about the specific symbionts. Providing more information in certain areas is definitely something I could have improved in my own article as well. I do not see any issues with the information in the examples themselves.

Organization: One of the most important aspects to change about this article is the structure. The article is mainly divided into sections based on examples of the mycangium in different insect species. These examples could be organized into subsections (using the “sub-heading 2” function of the editor) of a more general subsection possibly called “Mycangia in Insects.” I would make “Origin,” “Function,” and “Mycangium and symbiotic inoculum” separate sections from “Mycangia in Insects” if the author was to go this route.

Tone: In the “Function” section, the tone seems to break from encyclopedic. The tone seems argumentative as the author reasons the conclusion that mycangia aid the vector without providing links to specific references. Adding links to the citations and removing subjective words like “therefore” and “hence” would make the article sound more neutral and less like the author’s own conclusions. There is always also the possibility that mycangia have harmful effects on the vector. Articles should also present minority viewpoints if they exist. This is a very difficult to avoid problem, which is something I struggled with when formulating my article.

Sources and links: Adding Wikipedia links to the families and other taxonomic groups included in the examples would be very convenient. Providing superscript citations at the end of sentences in sections with no references mentioned would help with confirming origin of information. This is something that I could have incorporated much better in my own article.

Grammar and spelling: I fixed any grammar and spelling errors directly on the main page.

Sarahkurtis (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Emily
Emilysessa (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a very thorough and nicely written page! Some comments and updates to make...

Please add some internal links, especially in the Function section. There are many words here that have their own wiki pages, and you should link to those. Also, in the function section, please add a little more description of what the different terms are referring to. What is the symbiont? What are the vectors? Presumably the insects? Please explain this in a little more detail, as it's not really clear the way you've currently written it.

Make sure that you include citations for all statements that are factual. For example, in the Mycangia in bark and ambrosia beetles section, in the first few sentences, many of them need to have the citation information added. Also the genera named at the end of the section need to have links added to the names, that go to their pages. You also have here the words: "such as genus Ambrosiodmus (see left fig) ". What does this mean?? Do you mean to have the reader look at the figure? Then please spell this out. What is left referring to?

Please move the section "Mycangia and symbiotic inoculum" higher up on the page; this should definitely come before all the sections about the different groups of animals, since it is general to all mycangia, and a lot of questions I had as I was reading I found were answered in this section, so it should come farther up towards the top.

Really nice work and you've got lots of great information here!

Categories
Please, bracket categories like this:  when using them in your sandbox, otherwise, they show up in the wrong places. Open this entry in "Edit" to see what I mean. Thanks. --Polinizador (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)