Talk:Psilocybe semilanceata/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rev Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, this one's also headed to the gauntlet eventually, so spare not the rod! Thanks Sasata (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the Principal's electric paddling machine turned on! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go... I found some stuff to do:

The lead; snipette "...with a small nipple on the top." A real one? ;)

Even better, a mushroom nipple. Clarified. Sasata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Taxonomy; sentence "However, the generally accepted lectotype of the genus as a whole was Psilocybe montana, a non-hallucinogenic species; if those forms of the species in the study were to be segregated, it would leave the hallucinogenic clade without a valid name. To resolve this taxonomical dilemma, it was proposed in 2005 to conserve the name Psilocybe, with P. semilanceata as the type."

Clarify why the lectotype was P. montana; the Wiki article for lectotype is not really clear. Also, had P. semilanceata not previously been the type species?

Glossed a def'n for lectotype, and added a few more details about the name conservation. There's a bit more to the story, which I promise to elaborate before FAC! Sasata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Ecology, hab., dist; sentence ~~"Charles Horton Peck reported the mushroom to occur in New York in the early 1900s, but this was based on a misidentification with the species now known as Panaeolina foenisecii.~~

If Chuck got somethin' else, why do we care? ;)

Have clarified why Chuck's error was important. Sasata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:Mushroom-IMG 4742.JPG is sort of OR; the file description just claims its a mushroom.

Missed that ... have now added the (likely) species name to the Commons page. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In ~~Entheogenic~~ use, let's change that section title, so we aren't assuming anyone is using it for a mystico-spiritual purpose beyond just getting high on a mushroom.

Any suggestions? Just "Uses" doesn't seem enough to cover the totality of what's in that section. I still have the capacity to expand those sections, there's quite a bit of literature on the species; on the other hand I don't want to go into too much detail about the pharmacology of the hallucinogenic compounds, as that's more appropriate for other articles. Maybe subsection it into "History", "Chemistry", and "Risks"? The last sentence (about the PCR test) sort of seems out of place to me, but I didn't see where else to put it. Maybe in "Similar species" where I discuss other Psilocybe species? Sasata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Hallucinogenic use, Psychoactive properties, Hallucinogenic properties? BTW, use instead of uses... the plural reads purposely, the singular more anecdotal. But I like properties better :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed heading to Use, and inserted subheading "Psychoactive properties". Will probably put in another subheading along the way when the section gets expanded with extra details before FAC. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, sentence "Despite its small size, Psilocybe semilanceata is considered a "moderately active to extremely potent" hallucinogenic mushroom."

Does the source associate size with potency?

Yes, I quote: "Although petite in size, it is one of the more potent psilocybin-containing mushrooms." and the following quote in the article is taken from elsewhere in the source. Sasata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, sentence "Several studies since then support the idea that the species has a low degree of psilocybin content variability among samples, regardless of country of origin.~~

~~A genuinely considered association? Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not exactly sure what you're asking here... but there have been several studies that analyze psilocybin content in various hallucinogenic species, most coming to the conclusion that concentration varies wildly depending on a number of factors, including geographical location. This species sort of bucks that trend and produces the most consistent values for psilocybin concentration, regardless of where it's from. Does that answer your question? Sasata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm good with that ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert! Sasata (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Psilocybe semilanceata passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass