Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Fungi collaboration/Past DCs

Amanita muscaria (4 votes, stays until May 1st) - February 2007 (together with following)
Support:
 * 1) Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Peter G Werner 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Debivort 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) M&amp;NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
 * iconic toadstool, loads to write on toxicity, religion, taxonomy etc. Though article a bit unwieldy currently. Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * definitely iconic, and much of the article is in pretty good shape, with copious references. Some of the sections could use a rewrite to make them more clear and concise. Still some missing into in a few places. More on biology and classification is called for – so far, the taxobox is the only place where the mushroom's mycorrhizal nature is even mentioned! Some of the statements about the hypotheses of Wasson and Allegro definitely need to be balanced, as these are actually highly controversial among Vedic and Biblical scholars, respectively. Also needing to be mentioned are a couple of reports of indigenous Amanita muscaria use in the New World Subarctic, among the Ojibway and the Dogrib (though the latter report is questionable).
 * The article has gotten into much better shape in the last 6 months or so now that the edibility aspect has settled down. Debivort 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Truffle Tuber (genus) (4 votes, stays until May 1st) - February 2007 (together with preceding)
Support:
 * 1) Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Spawn Man 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Werothegreat 12:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) M&amp;NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gastronomically the quintessential fungus. Plenty of material Cas Liber 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably our best bet to make FA... Spawn Man 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the title of the article is now Tuber (genus), with Truffle now being a disambiguation page. Of the three articles you've listed, this one actually needs the most work. Yes, there's a lot of material here, but there's almost nothing there on the biology of truffles – a section on that definitely belongs in the article, toward the beginning, actually. Also, it needs even more citation-finding work than the "Psilocybe" article does. Could be a candidate, but would not be my first choice. Peter G Werner 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote for this article because, although as Werner says, it contains no biological information, it does quite a lot of information, and does not require cleanup as the fly agaric does, and has more than one picture (psilocybe only has the taxobox picture). Werothegreat 12:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Psilocybe (4 votes, stays until May 1st) - March 2007
Support:
 * 1) Cas Liber 2:10 pm, 10 January 2007, Wednesday (4 years, 4 days ago) (UTC+11)
 * 2) Peter G Werner 3:28 pm, 10 January 2007, Wednesday (4 years, 4 days ago) (UTC+11)
 * 3) M&amp;NCenarius 3:29 pm, 16 January 2007, Tuesday (3 years, 11 months, 29 days ago) (UTC+11)
 * 4) Halved sandwich 12:07 pm, 3 February 2007, Saturday (3 years, 11 months, 11 days ago) (UTC+11)
 * the citations should be readily doable, also similar but slightly less well known than Amanita muscaria. may be easier to get to FAC successfully.
 * I of course agree as well that its pretty far along. In addition to finding references to everything, there are some changes I'd like to make to the "Social and legal aspects section". Right now, the list of various countries laws concerning Psilocybe is way too long and should be broken out into its own article, replaced in the Psilocybe article with a paragraph summarizing the different legal approaches taken around the world. I also think that section should have some discussion about Psilocybe as a so-called "drug of abuse" (you can tell I have some biases in this area, so I'll have to be extra-careful to keep to NPOV if I write that part) and discussion of Psilocybe cultivation as an industry. I think the reference format will ultimately be need to be changed to the "ref" format used in the Galerina article, however, I'd like to wait until the article is close to done and most of the references have been added before doing this, since the downside of the "ref" format is that articles can become much more difficult to edit (due to all the embedded references in the raw text of the article).

Amanita phalloides (3 votes, stays until May 1st) - April 2007 (together with following)
Support:
 * 1) Cas Liber 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) M&amp;NCenarius 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Peter G Werner 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The other quintessential toadstool and most infamous one to boot. Done a bit on it and it is shaping up rather nicely. In some ways I feel it may be more coherent than Amanita muscaria. Cas Liber 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeast (3 votes, stays until May 1st) - April 2007 (together with preceding)
Support:
 * 1) Peter G Werner 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cas Liber 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) M&amp;NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Lets not forget the "lower" fungi, and this is certainly a very important group. "Yeast" is already at GA status and is long enough to potentially be a Feature Article. Needs a little more on yeast taxonomy, IMO, but otherwise its in really good shape. Peter G Werner 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, this one is not far off FA candidacy I think. Depending on people's energy levels might be a good one to get over the line...Cas Liber 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fungus (2 votes, stays until May 1st) May-June 2007
Support:


 * 1) Cas Liber 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) M&amp;NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I forgot the original fungus article. As with Dinosaur, I guess there is a case to be made for this one as well to be first cab off the rank...Cas Liber 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fungus" actually was the target of an article improvement drive some months back, but which only yielded limited contributions. This article actually needs a lot of work and there are a lot of important topics that simply aren't covered. Check the "To Do" list and outline I've left on the talk page. Peter G Werner 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Progress:

Was left as collab for two months due to size of article. Eventually became featured much later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lingzhi (2 votes) - July 2007
Support:

1. Debivort 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 2. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Already fairly well developed. Biased toward medicinal aspects, should be ballanced in that respect, but could be an article with a lot of attention in various circles. Debivort 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow what a surprise! Great amount of groundwork done. Let's go.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Progress:
 * This was the last collaboration as interest had subsided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shiitake (1 vote, stays until May 1st)
Support:


 * 1) Cas Liber 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) M&amp;NCenarius 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Another cultivated fungus with a large section on cultivation. Nice basis for an FA but would need alot of work on biology section. Cas Liber 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agaricus bisporus (1 vote, stays until May 1st)
Support:

1.Casliber | talk |  contribs 07:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Starting to shape up a bit (now we got the article name sorted). Well-known and may get some food collaborators interested. has enough info to be an FA. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 07:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Panaeolus
(1 vote, stays until September 1st)

Support:

1. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Panaeolus mushrooms are both interesting and ubiquitous. All members of this genus contain serotonin, urea, and tryptophan.