- Leading section: your leading section is very good. It is a good introduction to your fungus that is concise and informative.
- History and taxonomy: I think that this section has a lot if historical information that will be useful for the reader.
- Here, you say that Conant names your fungus in 1973, but in your taxobox, you say that it was 1937.
- For this portion, “Examination of internal transcribed spacers of ribosomal DNA genes (rDNA) in Cadophora melinii and C. fastigiata are morphologically highly similar,” can you clarify that the transcription products are morphologically similar?
- For the binomial name, you listed the original authors in brackets. I do not think this is needed.
- Growth and morphology: you do not need to write your species name in full, as it was already stated in the leading section. Abbreviate it to P. fastigiata instead.
- According to Figel et al. (2013), “Some black fungi were identified as C. fastigiata anamorphs of Pyrenopeziza species in the order Helotiales. This species is known to be common in municipal drinking water”.
- When using mycology terminology, I think it would be a good idea to link it to another Wikipedia article in case the reader wants further reading material.
- Habitat and ecology: there is a lot of information in this section for you to expand on in your final article. I think you should organize it by the material it was isolated from.
- Since your fungus was isolated from may colder regions, would you say that your fungus is a psychrophile? Can you find a resource that specifically states this.
- Biological and metabolic activity: You can abbreviate your fungus to P. fastigiata.
- I would advise you to organise this section in regard to the varied materials your fungus can metabolize (wood, apples) and lead with the enzymes it can secrete. This will make your paragraph easier to follow for the reader.
- I’m just curious about how your fungus is able to live in soil and wood, two very different environments! If you find an article that states this information, I would be very interested to know.
- References: LOTS of references. Good job on finding these!
Lorgecow (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your article looks organized and promising so far, your lead section is well written and works great as an introduction to your fungi
- Be more consistent with using P. fastigiate, you tend to alternate throughout when it’s unnecessary
- You could expand on what you might by the supposed morphological similarities in the internal transcribed spacers and the differences in the colony morphology for history and Taxnomy
- Your way referencing the years could be better phrased as part of the sentence rather than brackets
- E.g. opposed to “Originally identified as Cadophora fastigiate by Lagerberg and Melin (1928)”, it could just be “Originally identified as Cadophora fastigiate by Lagerberg and Melin in 1928”
- In Habitat and ecology, “One instance of isolation from dialysis water in a clinic” – this point sounds interesting, you might want to expand on the when and where for this instance or leave it out all together
- Since it seems to only occur in soil and wood, you could describe it as saprophytic in your article
- For biological and metabolic activity, you could expand on the specifics of the enzyme secretion and the specifics of the soft rot fungus (how it’s able to metabolize wood, what “erosion-type attack” allows this and how it works)
- The two points “Found to be responsible for wood decay in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica” and “Identified as causing postharvest rot of stored apples in British Columbia” could be integrated with Habitat and ecology
- I like your use of including links for certain terms but I don’t understand why you linked to postharvest
- As P. fastigiate causes a blue pigment on timber, you could talk about the impacts of that or the wood decay, from what I can tell it would result in a considerable monetary loss for the foresting and timber industry as it occurs in wood rich regions. Or alternatively you could explain how it appears blue
XiongP (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your article flow is very decent and allows for a comprehensive understanding on the topic with relevant citations that are both of high repute and sufficient in number.
- Your lead section is incredibly well-written and created a clear introduction to the rest of your discussion with an initially very basic overview. Good use of incorporating some comparative statements with other species through your fungus' unique features
- I think your sections are very well sourced however, to generalize a main element that I think will allow for a more clear reading of your article is the following: make sure you're not just stating facts after each fact but that you build a story within each section so that your comments can start either general or broad and then focus on one specific example before transitioning (explicitly) to the next. I think based on my reading of your sections, that this very significantly bring your article an even better level than it already is.
Rnoorani (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- references and formatting look OK
- a few things you could link: Sweden, Norway, Canada,New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ross Sea, Antarctica, etc.
- what is proboscis hyphal growth?
- some of the scientific jargon could be converted to common language, e.g., floccose, obovoid, collarette (I took a shot at this one for you), etc.
- good content!
Medmyco (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
