Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psilocybe aztecorum/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:41, 7 April 2012 [1].

Psilocybe aztecorum edit

Psilocybe aztecorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe aztecorum is a psychedelic mushroom known only from central Mexico, where it has been used in spiritual and divinatory ceremonies by indigenous peoples for a long time. I've improved the article to the best of my abilities, and am hoping for further suggestions and comments. Thanks for reading, Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • All foreign-language sources should be noted as such
  • FN 15 is a huge page range - any way to narrow it? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria, I've fixed both. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are goods
  • "Mandalas on his kneecaps ... " I am not sure if the term "Mandala" (Hindu/Buddhist) should be used in this context for an Aztec god. Something like "circular patterns" should be used. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Redtigerxyz. Mandala is the word used by the sources, but I agree this might cause some confusion for readers who click on the linked article. I've changed to circular patterns per your suggestion, as the meaning isn't changed. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK: spores, variety have linked numerous times in "Taxonomy and nomenclature". Check the article throughout. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now fixed this, thanks. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
typically in meadows or open, grassy forests with Hartweg's Pine. - hmmm, "with" seems funny when associating a tiny mushroom with a big tree. If we can't say "underneath" then maybe "associated with". More of a style query and not a deal-breaker by any means.
Named for its association with the Aztecs, - dunno, I'd slightly prefer "Aztec people" here for a first mention. Just sounds a tad more formal. Again not a dealbreaker and happy to yield of consensus sees otherwise.
The variety P. aztecorum var. bonetii differs has smaller spores than the main variety, - grammar fix needed
Gastón Guzmán emended - dang, not thrilled about seeing two bluelinks next to each other but I can't think of an alternative......
approximately cylindrical - I must say "approximately" sounds funny with a non-numeric adjective. My inclination would be to use "roughly" or "more or less" or somesuch.
...Guzmán reported the presence of the psilocybin, but not psilocin in the variety bonartii - why the "but" here?
...maintain close relationships with psychoactive mushrooms - I generally think of maintaining close relationships with people or some abstract concept like "nature". I'm thinking maybe "maintain/retain familiarity/expertise/knowledge with psychoactive mushrooms" or something similar

Overall, looking good as usual. Pretty straightforward fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, Cas. I've fixed all of the above per your suggestions here, with the exception of the consecutive link ... need to think about how to reword it. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments. Makes me think of the 60s, usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following technical terms are not linked at the first occurrence, if at all — spore, mycologist, fibrillose, emeritus.
  • adjusted/added linking, except for mycologist (to avoid another consecutive link, and I'm thinking that a reader who doesn't already know what the word means will understand it from the context) Sasata (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lookalike" seems a bit informal to me, but your call
  • Swapped for "similar species". Thanks Jim, Sasata (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very happy to see this here, and it's good to see an expansion of the religious use section. A few thoughts, but note that I am supporting either way. (Delegates- I was the GAC reviewer.) J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but this synonymy is not confirmed by either of the taxonomical databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I can't put my finger on why, but this doesn't seem right.
  • How about " ... this putative synonymy, however, is not indicated by either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum."? Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I think it really has to be "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum" or "is not confirmed by taxonomic databases MycoBank and Index Fungorum". Perhaps even "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum, both respected taxonomic databases". The worst thing is, I can't actually say why what you've written doesn't sound right; to my ears, it just seems wrong. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I went with neither ... nor and removed the somewhat clunky "taxonomic databases" (both are linked anyway). Sasata (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asymmetrical (mango-shaped)" "asymmetrical" does not mean "mango shaped", which this seems to imply
  • Removed this detail from the taxonomy section–it's covered later in description. Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Xochipilli (illustration)" Is this MoS valid? Strikes me as an unwarranted self-reference
  • Agree; removed. Thanks for the comments and support. Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:

:*"In 1958, Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann reported a concentration of 0.02% psilocybin and no psilocin, but this analysis was performed on two-year-old specimens" Psilocin isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article and as far as I can tell by reading it, the substance has no relevance concerning this plant. So, why mention it at all?

  • Psilocybin and psilocin often occur together in psychoactive mushrooms, so it's common to report concentrations of both. But I think you're correct about relevance here, so I've removed its mention. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I wasn't aware of that and I doubt most readers will be. I wouldn't object to it being re-inserted as long as there's a very brief explanation of why psilocin is worthy of mention.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:*The article twice mentions that the Aztecs used these mushrooms. Is there any more specific information on how they used it? Or is it the same as the way it's used now by people in Oaxaca?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Good point; I've now added "These mushrooms, considered holy sacraments by the Aztecs, were consumed during spiritual and divinatory rituals to induce hallucinatory visions." to make it explicit. Unfortunately, the remaining historical records don't allow us to say much more than that. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Psilocybe_aztecorum/archive1&oldid=1089817106"