Comment I'm not a specialist, but I think the category should be checked. I'm not questionning the ID of this one, but I think there are many "pelecanus thagus" mixed with the "pelecanus occidentalis". If I'm wrong, then there might be other competitors for this scope. I'm totally unable to check the category myself. --Eusebius (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't see the "californicus" suffix. I'm not really sure about it, although, again, I'm not a specialist. It doesn't look like the californicus displayed on en:WP, but its colours might vary with seasons, I don't know. Anyway, the Pelecanus occidentalis category should be organized following the different subspecies if we want to review this candidate properly (so for the moment my oppose is motivated by crit. 6). --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They seem to be juveniles which makes it even harder to distinguish between the two sibling species. I'm also not to happy with criteria 1 (there are better pics around} and criteria 4 (The birds more or less turn there back and one has its legs cut off). Lycaon (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
