I think it stacks up against all the quality criteria. This is the Australasian subspecies. It was put into the species article as a replacement for an
existing FP, so I'm also suggesting delisting for that one. The
second existing FP (in the taxobox) is of a different subspecies, and has a very different appearance.
Delist and replace. That is, I support this, and I'd ask someone to add my vote, with a link back here, to a delist nom when one is opened (which it should be).
Chick Bowen 00:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (Or alternately we could just consider this a delist and replace nomination per
the Obama one above.
Chick Bowen01:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC))reply
I think it stacks up against all the quality criteria. This is the Australasian subspecies. It was put into the species article as a replacement for an
existing FP, so I'm also suggesting delisting for that one. The
second existing FP (in the taxobox) is of a different subspecies, and has a very different appearance.
Delist and replace. That is, I support this, and I'd ask someone to add my vote, with a link back here, to a delist nom when one is opened (which it should be).
Chick Bowen 00:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (Or alternately we could just consider this a delist and replace nomination per
the Obama one above.
Chick Bowen01:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC))reply