 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hi!
Some of your bullet points don't have any citations beside them. Correct this as soon as possible! Wikipedia will remove statements that do not have a citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_and_why_to_cite_sources
I would definitely recommend finding more references for your article, since you only have 2 right now. Your article could appear biased because it doesn't draw information from very many sources. I found it helpful to look for a book that was specific to the the genus of my fungus, where I found a lot of morphological information. This book focuses on the genus Blastobotrys and is available from the Royal Ontario Museum upon request (you could always visit the help desk at Gerstein or another library and ask them to help you get it because the process can be confusing): https://search.library.utoronto.ca/details?6228537&uuid=bd0f94dc-39b4-4602-8247-3155e566d54d You could also walk through the shelves at Gerstein (in call number range in RC117) and look through the index of a few books that seem relevant to see if any information about your fungus is in them. I found this to be very helpful too, although a bit time consuming. If you didn't go to tutorial, I would also recommend attending the next one. Dr. Scott can provide you with a book from his collection that contains information specific to your fungus. In my experience, books tend to be great sources with more information and description than papers. You can use this information to provide more depth and variety to your facts.
I found some interesting articles (see below) you may be able to use with a search on Google Scholar. I would recommend that you quickly look through each paper that turns up when you make a Google Scholar search for Blastobotrys elegans, because you will likely be able to amass more references this way. Search the papers using command F to quickly determine whether they contain any relevant information. This sped up my researching process significantly.
This article contains some morphological and physiological characteristics of B. elegans: https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/ijsem/68/8/2638_ijsem002890.pdf?expires=1572566863&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1AB9AE8972EA6320A50E6B4089B7B7FE
This article mentions some ecological habitats of B. elegans: https://www-sciencedirect-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/science/article/pii/S0022201103001484
This article contains phylogenetic information: https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=111167
This book indicates that B. elegans has been found in the gut of fungus-feeding beetle of the genus Tenebrionidae: http://fmedicine.ajums.ac.ir/_fmedicine/documents/Fungi%20in%20the%20environment_20130417_085938.pdf#page=378
Genus and species names (i.e. B. elegans, Blastobotrys and etc) should always be italicized, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Scientific_names
You've done a good job so far of including links to other Wikipedia articles embedded in some terms. I would recommend that you expand this to other fungi-specific terminology that readers might not be familiar with. For example, 'teleomorphic', 'septa' and 'conidiophores' could benefit from this.
The first time you mention your fungus (in the second bullet point), refer to it with its full name (Blastobotrys elegans) instead of B. elegans (this is mentioned in the course guidelines!)
In your first bullet point, also mention the researchers who first isolated the fungus. This information is available on Mycobank: http://www.mycobank.org/name/Blastobotrys%20elegans It also seems like, from Mycobank, that the fungus was originally isolated and named in 1985. I would double check the information from the book you've cited saying that it was 1895 because I'm not sure that it's accurate.
Under Growth and morphology, your first bullet point could flow better. Does it mean that the colony grows to 35mm in diameter after 10 days at 20-22 degrees Celsius? It would be helpful to use clearer language.
Your second Growth and morphology bullet point includes measurements with two decimals points in them (i.e. 2.84.2 μm) - I'm not sure of the purpose of the second decimal place, or what the format of this measurement is. I would recommend that you give this a second look.
You can use code like this to better format the temperature and degree symbol (just replace the 20 with 20-22): 20 °C
You first bullet point under the Physiology heading is somewhat unclear. Under what conditions did the fungus not ferment? Since it was one of few species that did not, what other, similar species behaved in the same way? This bullet point is also currently without a reference. I recommend that you revisit this reference, cite it and include more information so that this point is more comprehensible.
I would also mention under you Physiology section that this fungus is primarily a yeast or yeast-like, since this is unique because most fungi are filamentous: http://www.mycobank.org/name/Blastobotrys%20elegan
Your last bullet point under Habitat and Ecology is somewhat unclear. When you say there is currently no pathology in other organisms, what organisms does it cause pathology in (if any)? If your fungus doesn't cause disease, I would remove this point. If your fungus does cause disease, cite your source and you could even include it under a new heading (for example, Human pathology)
Overall, a good start. I would recommend finding more sources using the library (I thought Gerstein was particularly helpful), Google Scholar and sending an email to Dr. Scott'going to tutorial to see if he knows any good books so that you can get a more well-rounded picture of your fungus.
Makennatimm (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
First of all, don’t forget to look up your fungus on WikiProject Taxonomy database for the appropriate Q number! (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10431026) Next to the binomial name in the heading, you can find the Q number for your fungus: Q10431026. When coding into the source editor, replace the “Qnnnnn” with the approprite Q number for your fungus, and that should get rid of the error at the bottom of the page. The last line of code should look like this (but nested within two sets of "{}"): taxobar | from = Q10431026 Following that, I read through your second source and it seems that the fungus originated from a strain in Finland in 1985 and not 1895. Be careful when recording information in order to avoid simple errors! Upon looking up the origin strain (http://www.wi.knaw.nl/collections/BioloMICS.aspx?Table=CBS%20strain%20database&Name=CBS+530.83C&Fields=All&ExactMatch=T), I noticed that there was a listed medium for growth: GPYA, or glucose-peptone-yeast extract agar. It might be worth looking into this growth method further in order to provide further details that might be lacking. On that note, I do suggest looking for more references. Gernstein was very helpful when I was writing my outline. If you are still finding any trouble, try emailing Professor Scott because he might know a good place to start. I did find a promising book containing information on your fungus that appears to be at the stacks in the ROM (https://search.library.utoronto.ca/details?6228537). I hope you find it a suitable starting point. For additional resources try looking at all the references in the articles & books that you have already. Good luck! Naq Nau (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Great article and impressive utilization of only two references. That being said, you only have two references. Make sure you include more references to support your statements. These references doesn't have to be related to your fungus. For instance, you should that the budding cells are mostly absent from your fungus and you can find supporting literature to substantiate why this happens or what causes it to happen. In addition, make sure to always reference all of the statements you make and reference them. Even if you have the same references and it seems tedious, you still have to do it.
Something that I found helpful for my fungus, which also didn't have a lot of information, is to find related information on the genus. Usually, this sheds a light into their ecological function or even pathogenicity. A useful resource is to look up the genus in Gerstein libraries website and do a scholarly search. Also use important resources like Dr. Scott who can easily recommend 2-3 books off the top of his head. (I did this for my fungus as well)
The first time you introduce your fungus, you use the abbreviated version, which is incorrect. Make sure you spell it out fully. You can find the proper nomenclature and methods on Dr. Scott's tutorial slides. Make sure you proofread your numbers in Growth and morphology because it seems to have a few errors. Once again, make sure to site all facts and numbers.
I would recommend looking more into the genus ecology, which might shed a light on to your species ecological role. In addition, you say that there are currently no recorded pathogenicity in other organisms, so does that mean there is pathogenicity in humans? Please clarify.
Overall, a good summarized article but have a lot of space to improve. Best of luck!