The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by
BlueMoonset (
talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality references used.
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.
ArcticKangaroo (
✉ •
✎) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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.
✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎ 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently trying to find something else...give me a while.
✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎ 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.
✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎ 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)