Jump to content

Talk:Psilocybe makarorae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePsilocybe makarorae 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 22, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the psychedelic mushroom Psilocybe makarorae (pictured) was described by two New Zealand mycologists known to assist police in prosecuting those who illegally collected the species?

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Psilocybe makarorae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this one now. Review to follow later today. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead could probably benefit from an expansion; also, you don't distinguish the species from the mushroom all that well.
  • "In his 1996 book "Psilocybin mushrooms of the world", Paul Stamets noted "that the two authors work closely with, are consulted by, and paid by law-enforcement officials to help in the prosecution of unlucky collectors."[3]" I'm not sure that the use of this quote is all that neutral. It creates an impression of The Man against the innocent collectors. Also, books should be in the form of The Book Title, not "The book title".
  • LOL at "The Man". I see what you mean, but I couldn't resist adding this interesting factoid from a reliable source written by a Psilocybe authority. Is it perhaps the use of "unlucky" in the quote that gives the non-neutral impression? Do you think it'd be alright if I kept the fact, but rewrote more neutrally in my own words?
  • "Guzman's" Guzman has not been introduced. Also, is it not Guzmán?
  • "The veil of young fruit bodies is cortinate—resembling the cobweb-like partial veil found in Cortinarius species)" Unopened brackets?
  • "has an apical pore." A little jargony
  • "they are clamped," Again
  • "They are hyaline (translucent), thin-walled, clamped, with necks that are 3–5 μm long." and clamped?
  • "but narrower (4–8 μm) wide" narrower wide?
  • "hypodermium" Link/explanation?
  • You could perhaps bump the similar species section by moving the discussion of how the species is distinguished from its close relatives there. You could list the 6 species recognised by Guzmán, as they are referred to by Johnston and Buchanan.
  • The article is a little awkward to look at because of all the material bunched around the description section. If you're perhaps willing to do away with the mycomorphbox, this looks much neater, to my eyes. This is just a thought; if you can see some other way to rejig everything, feel free to go with that.
  • I'm fine with removing the mmbox. I wish I could fix the text squeeze by adding more text, but an exhaustive search failed to turn up anything beyond the sources I've already used. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. Images check out, sources are good. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, but I'm going to have limited internet access for the next few days (until Wednesday at the latest). I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. J Milburn (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. Great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]