User talk:Soonyoulkwon/sandbox

Review from Xu Ji Hey! I read your article and here are some comments. First, I like how you add additional headings rather than just use the template provided by our professor, since it works better with the characteristics of your fungus.Second, it is good you have many references which give an article that contain lot of information on the fungus. However, there are also some minor things that you may change/add. First, I think it is better to be consistent when you capitalize letters. For example, in taxonomy section you capitalized taxonomy and etymology but not phylogeny. Also, I think it would be easier for people who do not have a strong scientific to read your article if you can explain some of the meaning, such as the bootstrap value, or the UAHM9986A number in brackets. The last point I want to make is in the history section of your article, for difficulties to identify the fungi in isolates, it is better to remove the brackets since it is a little bit redundant. There is also something that confuses me, in the sidebar the species name is Chlamydosauromyces punctatus and in the first paragraph the species name becomes Chlamydosauromyces punctuates but when I search there is nothing come out under this name(actually when I search on google there's your sandbox page and an article). Therefore I wonder if it is an alternate name not widely known or just a typo error. If it is an alternate name it would be interesting to elaborate more. Overall this is a great article! Xuji94 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review by Wezck

Hello Soonyolkwon,

Just going through your work now and it seems like you're going to have a very interesting wiki page out of this.

I don't have too much to add since you seem to have all your bases covered and the previous reviewer got all of the good points, but here's a few things:

As a person who browses wikipedia frequently, having the taxonomy either at the top or second to the top of that article behind history is really endearing. By breaking down the taxonomy, you provide the reader with a great summary of what your fungus is and what makes it special but without all of the scientific gibbly-goo and to the casual reader that is more approachable because it's coming from a linguistics. In your history section, you have a bit of a side note on why identifying fungi from isolates is difficult. I do agree with the fact that this information is important, but it seems out of place to me in the history section. I don't know where else you can place this information because it's integral to the discovery of your fungus, so I would recommend keeping that brief in your final draft. I think if you mention something along the lines of, "... was identified via isolate. This process can have it's restrictions, though, as mentioned by so-and-so et. Al (year)..." that would keep you on topic while still providing the reader with the info they need for that.

Keep up the good work! --Wezck (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)