Talk:Human interactions with fungi

Human interactions with fungi has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 18, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fungi in human culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

We are talking here, I suppose, about man's relationship with fungi, how fungi have impacted on man and how man has made use of fungi, is that correct?

Yes.

The article is quite short. I am considering whether the sections on Fermentation and Food, for example, cover the topic sufficiently comprehensively to pass the criterion "The article covers the main aspects of the subject".

@Cwmhiraeth: We can say more, but I'm conscious of the fact that there are substantial articles on these topics, and wish to minimise overlap. I'd therefore say that the "main aspects" are the existence of these topics, i.e. man's long use of yeasts for bread and alcohol, and the long use of edible fungi and fermented foods. I'll reconsider if there are aspects of these that should be covered further, and would welcome suggestions.

Before I started this review, I made a list of topics I expected to be included, and not all are present, so I will leave further study of the article until you have commented on the points I raise above.

OK. I'll have limited availability between 20th and 29th so if this is still open then we should put it on hold.

Some topics that occurred to me were moulds and food spoilage, dry rot and wet rot of timber, fungal diseases of crop species, fungal diseases of humans and livestock, use of fungi in folk medicine and use of entomopathogenic fungi in pest control. Just some ideas! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that broadens the scope from "culture" to "all interactions". Probably easier to defend with the wider sense, culture is a slippery term at the best of times.

moulds and food spoilage - done.

dry rot and wet rot of timber - done.

fungal diseases of crops - done.

fungal diseases of humans and livestock - done.

use of fungi in folk medicine - done.

use of entomopathogenic fungi in pest control - done.

In reference 18, John Ramsbottom needs disambiguating.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth - I've added sections as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

That was why I wanted to establish quite what the article was about. I realised after I had signed up to review it that I had looked at the nomination some time ago and rejected it on the grounds of lack of clarity of focus. Anyway, the article is looking much better now after your hard work yesterday, and I can find little to fault. Just a few points.

Many thanks.

"The fruiting bodies of some larger species" - The addition of "of fungi" would be helpful here.

Done.

The words "such as" appear four times in the end part of the second paragraph of the lead.

Fixed.

"This, while useful in composting, ..." - "This" is an unhelpful pronoun here.

Fixed.

"bootstrap-like rhizomorphs in the soil." - What is a bootstrap like?

Said strap-shaped.

- That's all for now. I think the article is much improved. Do you? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Yes indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the useful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fungi in human culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814053612/http://egodeath.com:80/WassonEdenTree.htm to http://www.egodeath.com/wassonedentree.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fungi in human culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706020126/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/b85p/part11.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/b85p/part11.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.egodeath.com/wassonedentree.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion, cross-linking, more details

Hi fellow fungi enthusiasts, given the increased use and relevance of fungi in society, I think this page is a great gateway for people to know more about it. I will add more examples (starting with fungi biomaterials), cross-link with existing pages, give more attention in general. I hope fungi practitioners will feel involved to contribute examples, pictures, etc. Please be kind with me, I am fairly new as editor. Always happy to learn. Thanks! CorradoNai (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLease take a look at references 27 and 28 - just while citing I realize ref 27 is a blog post (although on Sci American it might qualify as autoritative enough?), and as of ref 28, I am not sure iit is, in fact, original research. Thanks! CorradoNai (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]