User talk:Reneelinyx/sandbox
Peer Review by Wezck[edit]
Hello Reneelinyx,
Just looking through your article and you've got some really good information there in a very well organized pleasing matter. First of all, this is by no means your fault, but that taxonomy section is dense. I think your article will benefit greatly if you managed to distinguish the genus names better by maybe switching between them less as they are very similar to each other, but that is by no means an easy task. Also, in wikipedia tradition, a breakdown of classification names into their latin/greek meanings helps the casual reader greatly with the features of your fungus because it's being approached through linguistics rather than science. It also helps to describe the narrative of the issues of classifying your fungus more than literature disputes over who is right as it shows what people were looking at when they decided to call it by a certain name.
Other than that, I would suggest not getting too science-y in your Growth and Morphology section and keep to the side of your facts that are more "writable" than "listable" if you know what I mean. Also be sure keep linking terms to other wiki articles where you can or you'll be writing this article exclusively to mycologists and not the general public.
Good work! Keep it up! --Wezck (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Peer Review by Lipei12[edit]
Hi Reneelinyx,
Great job with your article! There seem to be few papers on your fungus, but here are a few suggestions that I hope can help you elaborate your article.
First, I have caught a spelling error in Taxonomy section "this species", which you may want to fix.
Second, some words are too technical, especially in Growth and morphology, which you may want to wiki link or explain in a more understandable way. Words such as oblong, hyaline, and punctate may be described with less technical words.
Third, in the history, you mention that the fungus was initially classified under different species. You may mention which species the fungus was wrongly classified as, and why it was classified. Maybe it has similar morphology as another species, and it would be interesting to point out if you can.
Fourth, I have found a paper indicating that the fungus was isolated from a meteorite carter, which I thought was very interesting. S. K. Deshmukh & S. A. Verekar. 2006. Keratinophilic fungi from the vicinity of meteorite crater soils of Lonar (India)
Lastly, I feel that it would be better if you can describe the few habitats that the fungus was isolated from, but still mention that habitats can't be concluded due to few isolate. Also, a small suggestion, but you can state that the fungus was not a human pathogen when you mention it isn't an animal pathogen.
I hope these suggestions help. I look forward to your final work. Nice work!