![]() | Chrysiridia rhipheus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a Gallery picture I believe it shows the colour of the wings better than the other "thumb" picture. I think both are worthy to be up so I thought this would be the most effect way. -- IvanTortuga 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. I will place notes to look at or fix as I go. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I will pass it as GA as I feel it passes the criteria now. I fixed up a few typos. If you want to go for FAC, there would be more info to gather. This is where having more info on life cycle, nectar sources, and folklore, as well as collector status and how/who ranks which lepidopteran is the 'best' etc, plus the prose could be gone over by another copyeditor. If you want to do this, and are able to get sources one day, give me a heads up. GA is a good 'staging point' to sit on until then. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Drury's Illustrations of Natural History, see p.40, James Duncan's Foreign Butterflies, see p.205 Pro bug catcher ( talk • contribs). 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
after Lees et al 1991 [1]
|
(1) Use
Endospermum as a food plant.
I had a look at
your sandbox. What about this cladogram? As far as I can tell Lees et al doesn't say if Chrysiridia is a clade, nor any of the other genera, which means cladogram might not be so good to include after all. It might be on the larger side though, better perhaps to have it like your first cladogram and not include genera after Alcides. Where should note (2) be?
(In brief:I can't make up my mind)
Narayanese (
talk)
20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
References
Should we render the common name as "Madagascan Sunset Moth" or "Madagascan sunset moth"? The article currently uses both. Melchoir ( talk) 08:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What does 'spp' abreviate. Can we spell it out or wlink it, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
How did a species article make it to featured without even a conservation status, let alone a paragraph about it? Anybody has any information? complainer ( talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chrysiridia rhipheus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I have given this article a B. It is still quite short, but what's there is good, and well-referenced, which is very important. I think the sections (or several of them) could probably be merged, which would help to tighten the prose a bit. -- Stemonitis |
Last edited at 11:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It is very colourful, though the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; rather the colours originate from optical interference. seems to say the same thing twice. Iridescence is the property of producing colour by optical interference. I edited this to The colours originate from optical interference in the iridescent parts of the wings. I was reverted by Pro bug catcher with the summary "while shorter, proposed change obscured that only the iridescent parts do not contain pigment". Now, it seems far from obvious that the red version implies this, and, this isn't stated (or sourced) anywhere in the article. Thoughts? John ( talk) 09:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The link in note 1 leads to the correct page: Louis Francois Jéhan, Dictionnaire zoologique ... Bd. 14; the text of no 1 about the persecution of the church and the edition of Migne is certainly an error. Unfortunately, I don't know how to change the text of a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.224.234 ( talk) 11:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Chrysiridia rhipheus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a Gallery picture I believe it shows the colour of the wings better than the other "thumb" picture. I think both are worthy to be up so I thought this would be the most effect way. -- IvanTortuga 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. I will place notes to look at or fix as I go. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I will pass it as GA as I feel it passes the criteria now. I fixed up a few typos. If you want to go for FAC, there would be more info to gather. This is where having more info on life cycle, nectar sources, and folklore, as well as collector status and how/who ranks which lepidopteran is the 'best' etc, plus the prose could be gone over by another copyeditor. If you want to do this, and are able to get sources one day, give me a heads up. GA is a good 'staging point' to sit on until then. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Drury's Illustrations of Natural History, see p.40, James Duncan's Foreign Butterflies, see p.205 Pro bug catcher ( talk • contribs). 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
after Lees et al 1991 [1]
|
(1) Use
Endospermum as a food plant.
I had a look at
your sandbox. What about this cladogram? As far as I can tell Lees et al doesn't say if Chrysiridia is a clade, nor any of the other genera, which means cladogram might not be so good to include after all. It might be on the larger side though, better perhaps to have it like your first cladogram and not include genera after Alcides. Where should note (2) be?
(In brief:I can't make up my mind)
Narayanese (
talk)
20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
References
Should we render the common name as "Madagascan Sunset Moth" or "Madagascan sunset moth"? The article currently uses both. Melchoir ( talk) 08:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What does 'spp' abreviate. Can we spell it out or wlink it, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
How did a species article make it to featured without even a conservation status, let alone a paragraph about it? Anybody has any information? complainer ( talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chrysiridia rhipheus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I have given this article a B. It is still quite short, but what's there is good, and well-referenced, which is very important. I think the sections (or several of them) could probably be merged, which would help to tighten the prose a bit. -- Stemonitis |
Last edited at 11:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It is very colourful, though the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; rather the colours originate from optical interference. seems to say the same thing twice. Iridescence is the property of producing colour by optical interference. I edited this to The colours originate from optical interference in the iridescent parts of the wings. I was reverted by Pro bug catcher with the summary "while shorter, proposed change obscured that only the iridescent parts do not contain pigment". Now, it seems far from obvious that the red version implies this, and, this isn't stated (or sourced) anywhere in the article. Thoughts? John ( talk) 09:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The link in note 1 leads to the correct page: Louis Francois Jéhan, Dictionnaire zoologique ... Bd. 14; the text of no 1 about the persecution of the church and the edition of Migne is certainly an error. Unfortunately, I don't know how to change the text of a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.224.234 ( talk) 11:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)