Info I chose the narrow scope because males and females look very different. This is by far the best picture on commons of a Red-footed Falcon, but it's only one of the many plumages.
Oppose I agree it is the best wild-life photo of an adult female we have. You use an argument of plumages for the rather narrow scope, which is OK for me provided the plumage was really clearly seen. But we do not see the breast (sorry if the is wrong bird-watchers term to use, hope you understand) section, which is an important aspect of the plumage in my opinion. For that purpose, I think the scheme Image:Falco vespertinus NAUMANN.jpg (can't believe that is an FP, btw?) is a better illustration (admittedly I do not know if any of the plumages shown in that photo is of an adult female?). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info I can't believe it's FP either, but it's clearly one of the best Naumann-pics... The middle bird is an adult female, and the breast plumage (or at least part of it) is showing in the photo.--oskila (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could add that info to the Naumann scheme. I have actually opened an FP delist request on it at COM:FPC. The lack of a good image page description is one of the reasons I have nominated it for delisting. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
