# Talk:Rubroboletus pulcherrimus

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boletus pulcherrimus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on October 7, 2009. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the  six good article criteria.
I'll be reviewing this article for GA.--Giants27(c|s) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Images need WP:ALT text.
Overall: 

Pass or Fail: 
I'll pass the article since it is very well written and flows amazingly. I however, encourage you to add the alt text.--Giants27(c|s) 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.
Thanks kindly for the review! Sasata (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The article states that this bolete was formerly confused with B. eastwoodiae, itself really just a B. satanas, yet California Fungi quite directly states the B. satanas and B. eastwoodiae are quite different.  
I would like to see a dedicated article for B. eastwoodiae with a correction in this article regarding the confusion.  
I have several pictures of B. pulcherrimus and B. eastwoodiae with striking differences between them, as described on the California Fungi page and would not mind sharing them here.  MStruzak (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am in Australia so not too familiar with US Fungi, but my understanding was that the european and US populations of B. satanas were also likely to be distinct from each other. We have to go on published sources here - has B. eastwoodiae been officially resurrected in a mycological journal as yet? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Failing that, we can at least expand the taxonomy section to clarify which name was based on what description from where and issues pending...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the name is back to eastwoodiae; I had this article on the to-do list, thanks for reminding me. Check back in a few days, I will try to have it sorted out. Sasata (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic! Mstruzak, we'd be very happy to see your photos - if you are happy with the licencing, uploading them for use on wikipedia would be much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
PS: Sasata, if an overhaul is in order, might be worth giving it the final shove then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a push and a shove might be in order. And I should correct myself above, this species isn't B.  eastwoodiae, but rather, B. eastwoodiae is now considered a valid species (the "American "B. satanas"). See the discussion here and subsequent link to Roy Halling's explanation. I will spend the next bit sorting out the various red-pored boletes (I have access to some more literature than when we worked on this a couple of years ago) and drop a to-do list for this article on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
My observation exactly.  Yesterday I came across two clearly distinct species:
The first one looked like a B. satanas, with the characteristic bulbous stipe and round, almost ball-like cap, but without any mesh on the stipe.
The second one matches exactly this description of B. pulcherrimus, esp. the red cap.
California Fungi mentioned above insists that there are no B. satanas in the region, and its description of B. eastwoodiae matches what I found.  I have an email into the webmaster for clarification, but after I wrote the blurb above I noticed their References mention the same 1910 Murill, W.A. book that this article (dis)credits for the original mistake.  I am not a specialist and can't tell which is right: B. eastwoodiae as a species separate from B. satanas or identical to it.
Here are the pictures I mentioned earlier:
 MStruzak (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rubroboletus pulcherrimus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090906192340/http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Boletus_pulcherrimus.html to http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Boletus_pulcherrimus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A subsequent autopsy revealed that the man had suffered an infarction of the midgut. Rubroboletus pulcherrimus was the only bolete that had been implicated in the death of someone consuming it,[14] It is known to contain low levels of muscarine, a peripheral nervous system toxin.[15] until 2005. A report from Australia records a fatality from muscarinic syndrome after consuming a mushroom from the genus Rubinoboletus.[16]

I think this sentence needs a little grammer help but not being an expert, I'd rather not edit it.