Talk:Psilocybe tampanensis: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
DYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs) Article appeared on DYK on 14 December 2011, adding to {{ArticleHistory}} |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{Talk:Psilocybe tampanensis/GA1}} |
{{Talk:Psilocybe tampanensis/GA1}} |
||
Great improvements! so are fungi in the section mexicanae (tampanensis, mexicana, atlantis, caerulescens) the only sclerotia producers? Is galindoi in mexicanae? |
|||
Revision as of 00:59, 7 January 2012
 | Psilocybe tampanensis 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 14, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the rare magic mushroom Psilocybe tampanensis (pictured) was found after its discoverer skipped a "boring taxonomic conference" to go mushroom hunting? | |||||||||
 | Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs GA‑class (defunct) | ||||||
| |||||||
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Fungi GA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Psilocybe tampanensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Mine. I'll be away Thursday-Sunday, so you may have to wait a little there, but I'm sure I'll be able to find time to promote tomorrow if problems are resolved by then- there's nothing major anyway.
- Sorry to be a spoilsport, but the images are problematic- it's not clear what "Photo by Workman" means, nor in what way (the?) Workman has released the images. Perhaps contact Alan Rockefeller?
- "nowadays" A little colloquial
- "from convex or conic with a slight umbonate," With a slight umbo, surely?
- "annular zone" Jargony
- "flexous" Again
- I'd say either link both types of cystidia, or neither
- Why is the "philosophers stone" point not mentioned elsewhere than the lead? Also, a mention of the possibility of it being an intermediate form in the lead would be good- it's a tad short right now.
- type locality is a dablink
- "Like most Psilocybe species, it is assumed to be saprobic." Ref? If you don't have a ref, I don't think we could really say this.
- Perhaps open the recreational use section with a mention that it contains psychoactive chemicals, and is consumed recreationally? Jumping straight to the German report seems to cut out the important point.
- How strong are these percentages? How does it compare to other psychoactives?
- The legal status section looks a bit short- perhaps it could be padded with some general facts about the legal status of the constituent chemicals?
- Formatting on refs 2 (perhaps), 6 (heavy capitalisation), 11 (lacks publisher location) and 12 (the original title would be a good addition)
- Concerning Category:Entheogens, there is no mention in the article of the species being used as an entheogen.
I hope this has been helpful, and I hope the image issue can be resolved. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick review JM, I'll work on this in the next couple of days. Am in no rush for promotion... will try to get images sorted out. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a helpful review! I think I addressed all of your points above except for finding the original Japanese title of Gonmori & Yokoyama 2009 on the internet to copy/paste–I don't think the article will suffer too greatly without this. I've been in touch with Workman who's okayed the picture usage (will send to OTRS shortly), and might even be able to produce a higher quality spore pic for us. Sasata (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looking much better, I'm loving the expansion of the recreational use section. There is one remaining problem: Note 8- "Stamets (2000), p. 420." is never spelled out in full. I'm happy to take your word for it concerning the OTRS tickets- if you message me when you send the emails, I can quickly double-check it and tag the images. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the Stamets source. The email to OTRS was sent yesterday; Workman doesn't remember making the spore pic, so the status of that image may be questionable, but I won't be fussed if it has to be removed. Thanks for the review; the article is part of "background research" I'm doing with the eventual aim of bringing the List of psilocybin mushrooms up to snuff. Sasata (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the email conversation, I'm happy to accept the spore pic (though, if Workman sends you another one, it would perhaps be worth uploading it over the old one). I'll process the ticket and then promote the article- it's looking great. Best of luck with the psilocybe project; I'll most certainly be around to offer reviews where helpful, but I'm finding less time for writing right now, and I'm making an effort to do some writing on subjects that I am actually qualified to know about! Hopefully I'll find some time to write some mushroom articles next year. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Great improvements! so are fungi in the section mexicanae (tampanensis, mexicana, atlantis, caerulescens) the only sclerotia producers? Is galindoi in mexicanae?