Talk:Psilocybe aztecorum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine- people are always so quick to claim these ones! Interesting looking article- one that could well be of interest to those who don't normally care for mushrooms. Review to come soon. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JM; this one's headed to FAC, so don't hold back :) Sasata (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I think the fact it is found only in central Mexico should come before the habitat.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The mushrooms have convex to bell-shaped caps 1.5–2 cm (0.6–0.8 in) in diameter, atop slender cylindrical stems that are up to 7.5 cm (3.0 in) long." Comma seems out of place- if it was "which are found atop" or something, then it would fit. However, the sentence looks a little short without it...

Changed to "set atop". Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"two psilocybin mushrooms candidates considered to be the Aztec teonanacatl ("flesh of the gods"), reported" mushrooms candidates? Also, again, the comma doesn't feel quite right

Reworded this part. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"in this publication" You've not named a publication- "in the same publication", perhaps? Also, the claim he described P. mexicana seems at odds with the fact he'd previously named P. aztecorum as a variety of P. mexicana?

Reworded all of this too. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link on P. caerulescens, annoyingly, goes to an article on a different variety, making the link somewhat misleading

P. caerulescens var. caerulescens is the nominate variety ... I may just rename this article to plain ole P. caerulescens (after I've done some reading; it's on the to-do list). Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"lignicolous" Jargon

Linked. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"this synonymy is confirmed by neither of the taxonomical databases MycoBank nor Index Fungorum." Rephrase?

Ok. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the captions for the microscopic shots where spores are visible, it would be great if the variety could be identified.

Judging from the elevation the samples were collected, I'd guess it was var. aztecorum, but at 3480 m, it's close to the borderline between the two varieties; I'll ask Alan at MO to see what he thinks. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say the "pleurocystidia ... are ... similar to the cheilocystidia in form and size", but you're yet to introduce the cheilocystidia.

Swapped these sentences. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Natarajan and Raman" Full names on first mention?

Cannot find their first names, so gave the initials (will look harder later). Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"progenitor" Jargon

now "ancestor" Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Northwest North America and of P. quebecensis in Northeastern North America." Over capitalisation? I may be wrong.

Uncapped. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"of Mexico and Morelos, and Distrito Federal" Odd phrase (also, dablink)

changed "Distrito Federal" to the English equivalent (and fixed dab), does this work? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be some odd choices of when to link in "Entheogenic use" para 1

Shuffled links. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guzman source is listed separately from the notes- perhaps the same for the Stamets source?

Yes, done. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another great article, with some fantastic illustrations. If you don't have anything lined up after psilocybe at FAC, I think this one would be worth a shot; all I'd like to see there is a little more on how the mushroom is used today by the Mexican groups. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, if it is heading to FAC, then yeah, I'd want to see more on its current usage. Are there specific things these people are looking for? Are there particular rituals associated with the use of the mushrooms? Are there any beliefs about the mushrooms? J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this would be a good addition. I think I might have some more success by checking Spanish-language sources (it is only in Mexico, after all), and by searching for the people rather than the mushroom. Will do this before I submit to FAC.

Perhaps try looking in the religion section of the library, rather than the mycology one? I'll have a snoop myself at some point- if I find anything, I'll scan it in for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, I'm jealous of J Milburn.~~ If you'll common name him in the lead, I see a 5x hook! Thx ;) Much GA/FA success with it! Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for submitting the DYK, Rcej. I'm on the fence about including non-English common names in the lead ... any opinions about this? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I'd say not, but this does look like it could be a special case, in that, firstly, there is no English common name, secondly, these are names in languages local to its range (while English is not) and, thirdly, speakers of these languages do consider the mushroom to be something significant. On balance, however, I'd say it's not necessary, though I wouldn't object to its inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a second look-through, the prose is a smidge choppy in places, but I am sure that this is something that will be worked out. I'm happy to promote. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]