Jump to content

Talk:Psilocybin/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC) My initial impression is that the article has the makings of GA but needs some tweaking, especially copy-editing. I would like to go through it by parts, starting with the lead, which is my highest priority, because I believe that many readers of articles like this only look at the lead. It ought to be be understandable and hit all major points -- in particular it ought to avoid jargon insofar as possible, and any jargon it uses ought to be explained. Right now it misses that goal pretty badly. The first paragraph, I believe, should get the gist of the story across, which as I see it is that psilocybin is a psychedelic drug, with effects similar to those of LSD and mescaline, occurring naturally in several types of mushrooms belonging to the genus psilocybe. Can we start by working on this? Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this review, Looie496, I appreciate your expertise. Will start working on a new lead tonight. Sasata (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a whack at the lead, and the first paragraph is along the lines of what you've suggested. Made some changes to the rest of the lead too, but am reluctant to spend too much time fiddling yet before we agree on what the content should look like. Sasata (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much more like it. I have taken the liberty of copy-editing your text, but please feel free to change anything that you feel is suboptimal. Much of what I did was to drop some detail that seemed more suitable to the body than to the lead. I am satisfied with this at least for now, and will move on to the rest of the article if you think it's okay. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I think the article's probably long enough to warrant a four-paragraph lead; I'll aim for that for FAC, but it's sufficient for now. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]
  • It isn't clear to me that the order of sections is optimal. I don't feel strongly enough about this to ask that it be changed, but the issue may arise if this goes to FAC. See for example the LSD article for an alternative.
 Done Good enough.
  • I disapprove of using "fungi" where mushrooms are meant. Fungi include molds, yeast, and some other weird stuff -- if the article means mushrooms, it should say mushrooms.
 Done
  • The infobox has an entry with a red X -- can that be fixed?
 Done Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • The first sentence seems misleading. My understanding is that it was an interest in mushrooms that led Wasson to look at religious practices, not the reverse as the sentence suggests.
 Done The History section is excellent now, FA level in my opinion.
  • Although I personally agree that "LSD hysteria" is justified, I think the article should try for a more neutral wording.
 Done
  • Although Carlos Castaneda's books were eventually recognized as fiction, they were widely thought at the time to be factual, so the wording in the article is somewhat misleading.
 Done
  • The reference to San Antonio's technique needs to be clarified, or put in proper wiki-format.
I think that would be a good thing to do -- the reader should be given a straightfoward way of getting more information here. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to replace entheogen with hallucinogen in the last sentence.
Sorry, I don't know what you are asking me to see. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • I would like to see some history extending beyond the 1970s, if possible.
  • I added a paragraph, but kept it short, as much of the relevant post-1970s history is covered later in the article. I have to try to keep the emphasis on psilocybin rather than the mushrooms containing them, but the balance is tricky. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Occurrence

[edit]
  • It would be nice to say something more specific about which parts of the world mushrooms with pharmacologically potent levels of psilocybin are found in.
  • Added "Psilocybin mushrooms occur on all continents, but the majority of species are found in subtropical humid forests. Roughly 40% of the world's known psychoactive mushroom species are found in Mexico." Sasata (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • I don't like "it is not likely to be uncommon". If it is so basic, why is it only found in certain mushrooms? This strikes me as weasel-worded and unconvincing.
    I have commented out this sentence for now; I need to locate the original paper (Benedict 1962) the review (Wurst 2002) is citing, and won't be able to draw general conclusions about the microtopic of psilocybin biosynthesis without first digging up some other studies. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'm happy just to have it left out.
  • The second paragraph suddenly starts talking about alkaloids, which have not previously been mentioned, nor their relationship to psilocybin explained.
 Done
  • Does the second paragraph really need so many references?
  • I assume you're referring to the triple citations after "The spores of these mushrooms do not contain psilocybin or psilocin." and "Many species of mushrooms containing psilocybin also contain small amounts of the psilocybin analogs baeocystin and norbaeocystin". I haven't yet come across a secondary source that explicitly says these things, so have resorted to citing multiple primary sources to support the statements. I realize that's not ideal, and am still looking for a single source to replace these. In the meantime, would you prefer if instead I formatted these as a single citation (similar to how I've done ref #103)? Sasata (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my preference would be to pick the best one, probably the latest since it will probably reference the others. But really I'll leave this up to you, as far as the GA process is concerned. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I won't push this.

Chemistry

[edit]
  • (ortho-quinone) This compound readily undergoes electron transfer, a feature that is thought to play a crucial role in its physiological activity -- What physiological activity? The article about it gives no hint that it has any.
  • I changed the sentence to hopefully make it more clear that the ET capabilities of o-quinone (an enzymatic breakdown product of psilocybin via psilocybin->psilocin->o-quinone) contributes to the biochemical effects of psilocybin. Perhaps the chemistry section should come later in the article until after the effects are covered? Sasata (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic methods

[edit]
  • I don't think this is the right place for a picture of the serotonin molecule -- this section does not refer to serotonin at all.
 Done
  • There is lots of info here about a variety of methods, but it would be nice to give the reader a feel for whether methods exist that are cheap and easy, or whether all the methods are sophisticated and expensive.
  • I worked over this section by pruning some excess primary references and reorganizing the presentation. In the process, I mentioned that the chemical spot tests are simple and commercially available. I haven't explicitly mentioned the costs of the analytical tests for the later material, but am hoping that contextual clues like "modern analytical techniques", "forensic toxicology", and the availability of links to all of the methods mentioned will make it obvious that this is high-tech chemistry performed by labs with a budget. I could prune the primary refs more, as all of these techniques are summarized and discussed in recent review articles, but I'm not sure it's necessary or desirable to do that for this section. I'm open to suggestions for further improvement. Sasata (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Pharmacology

[edit]
  • Serotonergic receptors interact with pyramidal neurons in the cerebral cortex, which are thought to be involved in the perception of pain and anxiety. This sentence is pretty far off the mark. It would probably be simplest for me to fix it myself if that's okay with you (this falls into my line of work).
 Done Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psilocybin and analogs of psilocybin have been used to help model the structure and function of the 5-HT2C G-protein-coupled receptor. It doesn't seem to me that this sentence accurately portrays the content of the cited sources.
My recollection from when I looked at them is that those papers were purely computational and did not actually use psilocybin at all, only modeled its effects -- but I'll take another look.
 Done Good enough. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use as medicine

[edit]
  • How about titling this section Use in medicine?
 Done
  • I think the first paragraph here should point out that as a consequence of the legal situation, the number of studies since the 1960s has not been very large.
 Done
  • Very few of the references given in this section are compatible with WP:MEDRS -- the exceptions are Prosser, Vollenweider, and Johnson. I don't want to be pedantic, but I think the section ought to make it clear that the cited sources of information are pretty weak. Ideally this section would be based on a secondary review rather than primary clinical studies, but I realize that no such review probably exists.
  • Sun-Edelstein 2011 is also a review article. I have tried to be careful with this section, by only citing the primary sources to acknowledge their existence and making it easier for the reader to find the original study; any conclusions drawn from those primary studies are now cited to reviews (sometimes as a secondary, supplemental citation). Essentially, there isn't anything said in this section that's not also confirmed in Vollenweider, so while it would be possible to eliminate the citations to primary studies completely, I think that would be a disservice to the reader. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good enough

Physiology

[edit]
  • Mental and physical tolerance to psilocybin builds and dissipates quickly. Ingesting psilocybin more than three or four times in a week (especially on consecutive days) can result in diminished effects. Tolerance dissipates after a few days, so frequent users often keep doses spaced five to seven days apart to avoid the effect. It isn't clear to me whether these statements are derived from any of the cited sources, or if so, which ones.
 Done

Effects

[edit]
  • Larger groups (composed of more than eight individuals) were seen as rejecting and less supportive by the subjects -- I don't understand precisely what this means.
 Done
  • Recent studies into the effects of psilocybin on time interval reproduction may shed light on qualitative alterations of time experience in experimentally-induced altered states of consciousness, mystical states, or in psychopathology. "May shed light" is meaningless. If this sentence can't be revised to actually say something, it should be deleted.
 Done
 Done
  • Latent psychological issues may be triggered by the strong emotional components of the experience. In other words, a sufficiently good or bad trip can have effects even after one has come back. This is vague -- can it be made more concrete?
  • I have removed this statement; I don't have access to the source, so cannot verify it. Besides, it seems to me that the overall message is covered by the mention of hallucinogen persisting perception disorder later in the "Possible adverse psychiatric effects" subsection. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Mystical experiences

[edit]
  • This section needs to start out by explaining briefly what constitutes a mystical experiences. I expect most people have a general intuition what this means, but you need to make it more specific.
  • Not quite sure how to go about this. I added an initial sentence about Pahnke's criteria for the "mystical experience" with a citation to his 1966 paper. That paper describes 9 categories by which a mystical experience can be evaluated. I'm reluctant to give a one-sentence definition of "mystical experience" for fear of oversimplifying, but on the other hand I don't think I should list and explain all the categories. As a compromise, I could expand the linked section (mystical experience) and explain Pahnke's criteria there (where it belongs). How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, it is clearer now.
  • The last two sentences read incoherently. Doblin first seems to criticize the experiment, then praise it, with no transition to warn the reader of the flip. At the very least, the last sentence needs a "nevertheless" or something. Also, it might be helpful to give the reader some clue who Rick Doblin is.
 Done
  • I have some discomfort with a couple of things here that come across as too enthusiastic to feel neutral. I suggest dropping the sentence about Huston Smith and the quote-box by William A. Richards. A lot of readers will simply be made suspicious by statements like those.
  • I do want the article to be neutral, but on the other hand I like quotes as they add flavor and make the text more interesting. Huston Smith is a well-known (in his field) religious scholar and author of textbooks on religion, so I thought his quote gave an interesting perspective. The quote box adds some visual variety, and (IMO) pretty accurately sums up the psilocybin experience. What would you think about adding another quote from David E. Nichols, for counterbalance: "If you take psilocybin and go watch 'Friday the 13th,' I can guarantee you won't have a mystical experience"? Sasata (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept Huston Smith if you add a phrase to indicate to readers why he is notable, but I just don't like that quote box -- it comes across as evaluating the experience rather than describing it. A quote that was descriptive -- even in flowery language -- would work much better in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the quote box, but added a different quote from that paper elsewhere in the article (I wanted to keep that recent review article as a source somewhere). I may add a different quote along the lines of what you suggested later, but need to think about it some more. Also added a few words about Huston Smith. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • The fourth paragraph ("The effects of...") is poorly written and incoherent. It seems to pack two clashing messages into one paragraph. I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but whatever it is, it doesn't work.
 Done
  • The final paragraph again has an unduly promotional tone. This needs to be toned down or even dropped from the article -- parts of it seem to repeat earlier points.
  • I reorganized and trimmed the final two paragraphs of this section and combined them into one. I removed the clashing message, and a "promotional" testament from one of the 2011 experimental subjects. Sasata (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Related research being conducted by this group is investigating whether mystical experiences in volunteers given psilocybin can help with anxiety and poor mood due to cancer. I think this should be removed -- the fact that somebody is investigating something is rarely of encyclopedic importance.
 Done

Use in medicine

[edit]
  • This whole section makes me uncomfortable, as none of the sources are at MEDRS level. Given the dearth of information I am prepared to accept them, but I think you should add a sentence to the introductory paragraph emphasizing the preliminary and tentative nature of all these studies. I have some doubts that that solution will fly when you take this to the FA level, though.
  • I have reorganized this section a bit, and removed or replaced a couple of refs. Having just reread the WP:MEDRS, I think the section is compliant and uses primary and secondary sources in the manner described by the guideline. Please point out any specific instances where you disagree, I'd really like to get this right. I think the use of the strategically placed phrases "pilot study", "preliminary results", and "Despite flaws in the study design" should suffice to indicate the quality and nature of the studies. I disagree that "none of the sources are at MEDRS level" (what's wrong with the reviews Vollenweider 2010, Halker 2010 (newly added to replace a 2000 review), Husid 2007, and Sun-Edelstein 2011?), but am interested to hear why you disagree. Sasata (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I overstated this a bit. Normally in a top-level medical article, pilot studies and case studies would not be cited at all, only review papers. (I agree with you, though, that the ones you mentioned are proper secondary sources.) Primary sources would instead be cited in a subarticle such as Pathology of foo. Anyway, I'm prepared to accept this as it is now, but don't be too surprised if the issue comes up again at FAC. Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Although this isn't strictly a medical article, I agree this specific section needs to conform to WP:MEDRS standards. Before FAC, I'll solicit the opinions of some med-types to get some more eyes on it and make sure my assessment of MEDRS compliance is accurate. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it needs work on sourcing. While it is often possible for articles to dodge or debate the requirement for secondary sourcing it is nearly always a bad idea to do so. Virtually anything worth saying on the topic should by now be available in a review or other high quality secondary source. It's not as if the subject was obscure. As a start, I'd go through each of the refs in that section and flag any non-review sources with {{primary-inline}}. Then go looking for usable substitute refs. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LSD, thanks for your comments. I have tried to be very careful with the primary sources in the "Use as medicine" section. The primary source that you tagged is being used only to verify its existence, not to support any medical claims; it's my understanding that this is an appropriate use of primary sources per WP:MEDRS. It's an important paper (even though primary) and I wanted to be sure the reader would have a way to get to the source easily by citing it in that section (as opposed being further down in "Further reading"). All of the medical "claims" in this section have been cited to secondary reviews. I welcome further comments on the sourcing for this article. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • However, in many national, state, and provincial drug laws, there is a great deal of ambiguity about the legal status of psilocybin mushrooms and the spores of these mushrooms, as well as a strong element of selective enforcement in some places. A reference needs to be cited to support this statement -- if any of the listed ones does, it is not clear.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Are all the links for the Hopkins experiment useful? If they are all hashing over the same ground, would it be possible to pick the best and reduce the number?

Final points

[edit]
  • Once the listed points have been addressed, I will be ready to promote the article. As a reader, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any information that differentiates psilocybin from other hallucinogens such as LSD and mescaline (beyond the obvious source and potency differences) -- but I realize there might not be any information available. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify for myself, do you mean differences in the nature of the "trip" (subjective experiences of users) or differences in pharmacology (what receptors each interacts with)? Sasata (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added this: "Other than the duration of the experience, the effects of psilocybin are similar to comparable dosages of LSD or mescaline. In the Psychedelics Encyclopedia, author Peter Stafford noted "The psilocybin experience seems to be warmer, not as forceful and less isolating. It tends to build connections between people, who are generally much more in communication than when they use LSD."

Excellent; I have promoted the article. (I added it to the Pharmacology section on the GA page -- feel free to move it to a different section if you like.) Let me say that I think this is a very nice article at this point, and I look forward to supporting it at FAC. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review, Looie496. I'll probably wait a while and let the article sit a bit longer before FAC, but I feel more confident about a smoother ride now. Sasata (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psilocybin/GA1&oldid=1090576084"