Template:Did you know nominations/Plastingia naga

Poor quality references used.

Plastingia naga

 * ... that the Chequered Lancer (pictured) can be found from Assam to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Borneo, Indonesia, and the Philippines?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Repton Priory

Created by Arctic Kangaroo (talk), Dger (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by Bonkers The Clown (talk) at 04:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC).

ALT1: ... that naga in the scientific name (Plastingia naga) of the Chequered Lancer (pictured) refers to the naga, a creature with the body of an anaconda and the head of a dragon? Nominated by Arctic Kangaroo.
 * Note: I just added the info on the scientific name less than an hour ago, so I would like the reviewer(s) to consider which one to place on the main page. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Too long, Arctic. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 03:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shortened already. Now should be less than 200 characters. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 02:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Patience, and the time will arise when someone WILL have to review this... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 04:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Review (under progress) by User:AshLin.
 * New. Adequate size. At present Prose size (text only): 2041 B (348 words) "readable prose size" using script Page Size.
 * The description of "naga" as given in the ButterflyCircle source (which is not a reliable source) is incorrect. This butterfly was described by Lionel de Nicéville, who primarily worked in the Himalayas and NE India and other parts of the Indian subcontinent. The type locality is given as "Sibsagar, Assam", check it out on Yutaka's site & de Niceville's original descrition. Hence the personification of the naga would be that of Hinduism. The Wikipedia article on Nāga in Buddhism also mentions a many-headed cobra. The dragon head interpretation as per the Wikipedia article is as per belief of Malay sailors. This makes the fact disputed and the hook is not supported by a reliable source. I advise you to remove the defective interpretation from the article and choose a different hook.
 * Adequately cited but the ButterflyCircle source is not reliable. Please replace that with a more reliable source.
 * More later.

AshLin (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yarh .-. I was actually concerned about the blog source... ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Poor quality references still in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No choice leh, that was last resort. Butterfly info is very hard to find on the net, anything that seems reliable enough, need to grab it. Even those scientific butterfly books I have are mainly written for identifying butterflies. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently trying to find something else...give me a while. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 08:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I googled through quite a number of websites, but found nothing useful. Perhaps I use what is available in the article to generate another hook. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 08:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that the Caryota mitis (Fishtail Palm) is the host plant of the Chequered Lancer (pictured)?
 * ALT3: ... that the Chequered Lancer (pictured) is a forest-dwelling butterfly?
 * ALT4: ... that the Chequered Lancer (pictured) is usually active only from early morning till noon?
 * Sources don't look to have changed, still need all of them to be reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)