Commons:Valued image candidates/Balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) Bulgaria.jpg

Balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) Bulgaria.jpg

**promoted**
Image
Nominated by	Charles (talk) on 2017-08-15 09:14 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Boloria graeca balcanica (Balkan fritlliary) dorsal
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment, the link to this nomination was broken by an image file rename. I renamed this VI candidate file to match the image file name, and all is well again now. DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Support -- Used and Best in Scope. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] ~~Oppose~~ The current VI is better at the review size, IMO. The black background makes the butterfly stand out more.--Peulle (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm not a huge fan of the dark background myself but the detail in the other VI is hard to ignore for illustrating the subject. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Peulle and Sixflashphoto: Please reconsider your votes. The scope is different for live animals and mounted specimens. Charles (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment I will but all I'm seeing is Boloria graeca (species) balcanica (region), the english translation, and the side (dorsal). If you can show me what I'm not seeing right (totally possible) I will.Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment I see it now. The scope of the last VI was Boloria graeca (Balkan fritillary) Mounted specimen, dorsal side. That's enough for me. I like this picture.Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. Charles (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Support There is no problem. The two subspecies are different (Boloria graeca graeca and Boloria graeca balcanica). But even in the case of the same subspecies, the two forms alive and mounted are different. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Support I see it. Vote amended. In my defence, this current nomination's scope could have been clearer in its distinction. --Peulle (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 3 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)`[reply]