Talk:Arcopilus aureus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anika's Review

Lead Section

• You do a good job introducing the basics to your fungus. Try to have sentence or two introducing each of your sections to give the readers things that they may expect in your content.
• Also, your link to Acropilus does not exist, you will have to remove this.

History and taxonomy:

• Include relationship to other members of the genus. How are they distinct from other species of the same genus?
• You may want to briefly explain how they came to the name Acropilus, or what types of studies they conducted to arrives to this fairly recent genus. Try to see if you can find more information in ref name = wang2018
• Your Gottfried Kunze page does not exist.

Growth and morphology:

• You do an excellent job describing the different features of the fungus.
• You many want to expand a little bit more on growth such as growth responses to temperatures.

Ecology:

• Thymelaea lythroides page does not exist. Be sure to explain this in a few sentences.
• Is there a different in habitat compared to indoor versus outdoor plants?

Therapeutics:

• Your Liebermann test page does not exist. Be sure to remove this and explain in a few sentences what this test is.

Environmental biotechnology:

• The flow in this section is a bit choppy. You should briefly explain what the environmental biotechnology feature is for A. aureus. A suggestion is that you can bring your last point up and make that your introductory sentence.

Simran's Peer Review

• Your lead paragraph is well done, as it doesn't repeat what is said in the other sections of your article. It is brief, yet gives enough information to understand what your article is about. Good job!
• History and taxonomy: Include information about how X. Wei Wang and Samson came to rename it if you can.
• Growth and morphology: I like how you mentioned the morphology of Chaetomium before describing the morphology of Arcopilus aureus. I think this is important to do especially since it was initially thought to be Chaetomium aureum. You did a really good job in this section!
• The ecology and therapeutics sections are well written.
• Environmental biotechnology: I noticed that all the information in this section is cited from the same source. I think it would help if you can find at least one other source that provides information about Arcopilus aureus and its high lead concentration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimranKS (talk • contribs) 03:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Deeana's Peer Review

Hello,

• I think this is a great draft for your article. The references are used relatively equally and the facts are displayed neutrally without any bias. I especially like the Therapeutics and Environmental Biotechnology sections and I hope to incorporate those in my own article if possible as well.

Things to consider

• I like the description of the morphology of the fungus as it grows since it changes so many colours and changes many shapes. They were listed out nicely but hopefully it will remain clear as you continue to write your article and make complete sentences with those facts.
• I think the lead of your article can describe more of what the fungus is like physically, like include some information from the growth and morphology section as well. Potentially omitting when it was first identified and what it was called when it was first identify. I think those details would belong better in the history and taxonomy section.
• Acropilus page is red, perhaps removing the link to the wiki page since it doesn’t exist.
• could you explain more on how they renamed the fungus? Like maybe explain a little bit of how and why Wang & Samson decided to change the name of the fungus
• Maybe it would be better if you write the perithecium morphology of Arcopilus only, instead of comparing it or starting off with the comparison to Chaetomium.
• I am confused as to which genus this fungus is a part of? Because at the side and lead says Arcopilus however, the facts and information mainly refer to Chaetomium as the genus. I am not sure if I misread anything but please double check to make sure the information is consistent.
• The page for Thymelaea lythroides doesn’t exist as well
• I like the detection section and I find it very interesting but perhaps it can be put into a subsection under the history of the fungus?
• The therapeutics section is very interesting however, the order of the facts are a bit confusing because there was suddenly a new species name as the first point. So maybe explain that experiment a bit more starting from how A. aureus has the most resveratrol production
• oosporein is also red so be sure to check that

Questions

• is there more information on the anti-cancer properties of this fungus?
• are there any studies or actual companies using A. Aureus as bioremediation for soil or is it still just a potential idea?
• are they pathogenic to humans and have there been any relationship with humans?

Articles to consider

• ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY OF EXTRACT FROM ENDOPHYTIC FUNGI by TAVARES, D.G.1
• Screening Endophytic Fungi for Production of Piceatannol, A Novel Inhibitor/Disruptor of α-Synuclein by S Saxena

Some suggestions

• references and formatting look OK
• lots of good content
• I know the term has been used widely but I’ve never understood “boat-shaped” because there are so many different kinds of boats. Is there a better way to describe this?
• you can link a few more things (e.g., country names, maybe also terms like electrophoresis, cellulose, etc.)

Medmyco (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)