Oppose - no species / cultivar name information. Commons has far too many un-named Hibisci, and not enough named ones. - MPF23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, like probably the entirety of Commons' unnamed Hibiscuses. These flowers are mostly a single species with all sorts of varieties, with a few exceptions. Cary "Bastique" Bassparlervoir17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure on that - H. syriacus is also very commonly cultivated. But even if they are mostly H. rosa-sinensis, unless they are wild-type plants (preferably photographed in the wild!), they should have a cultivar name - MPF23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photograph. Information on genus, species, and cultivar is desirable but not a requirement. Fg201:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The species is Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, I got it confirmed from the Chinese Hibiscus article. But still I dont understand why the species name is so important, I am not a biologist to know the genus, species and all that, I am just a layman and I come across a beautiful pic and nominate it :) --Nvineeth09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that genus and species labels are desirable but should not be required for featured status. Fg201:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice picture, but not more. Macro pictures of garden flowers can be taken with great controll over circumstances, and thus I think they need to be close to perfect to be featured. In this the dof is lacking slightly, in the very focus of the picture at that. It may not be a simple task to avoid that, but still a requirement to get a pro-vote from me. /Dcastor23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]