Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Psilocybe semilanceata/archive1

Resolved comments from J Milburn

• "But unlike P. cubensis and P. coprophila, the fungus does not grow directly on dung; rather, it is a saprobic species that feeds off decaying grass roots." Starting a sentence with "but" doesn't read that well.

• I agree that has conventionally been a stylistic no-no. But check this link. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• There seems to be some inconsistency with how the article sometimes refers to the species by its common name and sometimes its specific name.

• I only found the one instance in the lead, and have removed it. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "chemical investigations into the chemical makeup" repetition

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "baeocystin" Worth a link?

• Yes... in the lead sentence :) Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the taxonomy section, I'd personally prefer to see the authors' names given in full.

• I went the other direction and abbreviated them (see reply to Ucucha above). Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "the generally accepted lectotype (a specimen later selected when the original author of a taxon name did not designate a type) of the genus as a whole was Psilocybe montana," Was the species as a whole, or was a specimen of that species? Your definition suggests the latter, your wording suggests the former

• Reworded a bit... is it any clearer? Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The proposal was accepted unanimously by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi in 2009.[15]" So, the others were renamed, and this species is now the type species?

• Yes. To be sure, I've now explicitly mentioned the outcome of the proposal in that sentence to eliminate possible confusion. It basically means that several dozen of the Psilocybe species articles here need to be emended and renamed. I'm working on a genus article for Deconica and will coordinate that when it's ready to go live. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Link Phrygian cap in the caption?

• Sure. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "lamella" A bit technical

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "annular zone" Again?

• Added wiktionary link. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Jochen Gartz" Who is he?

• German chemist/mycologist well-known in the underground for his research and numerous publications on psychelic mushrooms and other psychoactive substances. I added "German mycologist" to the article and redlinked his name. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "hyaline" link?

• Ok. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "subpellis" Define?

• The sentence already defines it ("Immediately under the cap cuticle is the subpellis" ...) but I italicized it as it's an example of word-as-word. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Their gills were narrow, crowded, and anastomosing, sepia with brownish vinaceous (red wine-colored) cast, and a white margin." Confusing sentence.

• Split and reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The toxic species Cortinarius rubellus (formerly known as C. orellanoides)[27] has been confused with P. semilanceata by novice collectors looking to consume the mushrooms for hallucinogenic effects, sometimes with drastic consequences.[28] The expanded and bluntly umbonate cap of C. orellanoides is orange-brown with a diameter typically ranging from 2–6 cm (0.8–2.4 in)." Ok; firstly, our article on Cortinarius rubellus could perhaps do with some updating- first of all, its an article on two species, secondly, it seems to consider C. orellanoides the "real" name. Further, why did you choose to refer to it as C. orellanoides in the second mention in this article?

• 1) Yes, that article certainly does need updating (and splitting into two); 2) orellanoides ≠ orellanus; 3) I fixed the erroneous 2nd orellanoides in the article. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "and consequently, much older literature reported the species to be present in the eastern United States" How can older literature be a consequence of newer literature?

• Oops, meant "much older" relative to today, not then ... reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "associated with consumption" In context, it sounds like you're saying "associated with consumption"

• Never thought of that. Changed consumption to ingestion. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Use" should be renamed to "psychoactive use"? Or "recreational use" or something? A see also pointing to Psilocybin mushroom may also be useful.

• Changes header as suggested, and reduced the next subheader from "Psychoactive properties" to "Properties". I've already got Psilocybin mushroom linked in the text. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "This findings was confirmed"

• Removed "s". Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, I'm amazed we haven't got an article on Thom Kuyper yet- I always seem to be coming across him...

• I redlinked him, perhaps it will compel someone to start an article? Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Beug and Bigwood" Full names?

• Ok. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "claims it is the world's most common psychoactive mushroom" Is this the most common species, or the species most used for psychoactive purposes?

• The former... I think the intent is clear, but am open to alternate wordings. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments to SmartSE

• The information from refs 63 + 64 might be better in the ecology than in the antimicrobial section.

• Hmmm.... maybe. That would leave the section with 1 sentence. Let me think about it a bit, I might reorganize. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah I realised that, I'm just not sure how to deal with it. Could it all be moved to ecology, mentioning that it is able to inhibit the growth of different organisms, including MRSA? SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, seems logical to me. I added it to Ecology (which I separated off into a separate heading). Sasata (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Has anyone published on why the mushroom contains psychoactive compounds and how they might have evolved in the first place?

• Yes, but that's a discussion better left to Psilocybe or Psilocybin mushroom, imo. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ok fair enough. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• You link to Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms in the see also, but there is no mention of the legality in the article. Could you add some information about the laws governing their use and possession? This from the 1970s and a more recent reference from the UK may be of use.

• See my response to Ucucha above about this. I wondering if I should make (or rather, get someone to make for me) a template to cover this info that could be used in all of the Psilocybin mushroom articles. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed the comment above. Personally I'd still say it should have a sentence somewhere in the Psychoactive use section linking to the legal status article and mentioning that like other psilocybin mushrooms, they can be illegal to possess. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've added a couple-sentence blurb at the end of the article as suggested. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should some mention be made of them being cultivated? AFAIK it is relatively rare for people to bother cultivating mushrooms, so it probably deserves a mention. I can find references in google books, but none with full view (strangely, despite the title, ref 21 doesn't mention cultivation).

• This species doesn't lend itself to easy cultivation (it has been done, but typically by true masters of magic mushroom cultivation). Psilocybe cubensis is the species most often used by the hobby grower :) Sasata (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll take your word for it. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Journal references, where relevant, aren't tagged with (subscription required) yet.

• I removed the redundant urls in two cases, as they led to the same location as the doi link. I fear I may be fighting with the citation bot for the rest of my existence, as it likes to put those links back in :P Sasata (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• You'll know more about this than me, but as an example shouldn't ref 32 be tagged to show that the doi leads to a page where a subscription is required? SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• It's my understanding that a doi link does not need to indicate subscription required (as it's generally assumed that this link will only lead to an abstract), it's only required when the article title itself is linked and thus might give the reader the impression that clicking the link will give access to the full article. Happy to be corrected, though. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I've never seen any guidelines about this and couldn't find any, so won't objecct based on that. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

* Knowing how you like tidy references, this tool would allow you to shorten the urls in the google books references.

• That is a handy tool, I will certainly make use of it. Now if there was only a way to make it go through all of my other creations and trim those automatically... Sasata (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I know, should maybe try and get it incorporated into a bot. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)