Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOppose - It is a great head-shot of an iguana, and artistic (i.e., Commons), but the EV is questionable as the rest of the body is not shown...-Godot13 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but he looks so pensive and deep in thought. — Cirt (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amending comment into oppose above. The entire genus of animal can't be represented by a head-shot. It is a great image, but lacks the necessary EV. Sorry.--Godot13 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Godot13, thanks for your participation here, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Was this pic taken at night?Sca (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Being the photographer, I clearly do not mind it being used as a feature picture. The photo information page contains all the relevant information it should; the animal was not photographed in the wild, but in a reptile park in Oslo, Norway. It is well cared for, but usually refuses to pose for photos. uspn (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Godot. I think this is an absolutely fantastic photograph, but I'm not convinced that it has high EV. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Godot. Considering this hasn't even been able to stay in the article, there is clearly an EV issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: It is in the article. It's the main image for article, Iguana. — Cirt (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been stable as the main image at the article Iguana for over seven (7) years. That speaks to its high EV. — Cirt (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check "File usage". It's not showing up there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492:That's because I moved the file itself to a more clear name. Check the article. It's been in that article as that image for over seven (7) years. Sorry for the confusion about the file move. But it is in use there for seven (7) years, stable. Thank you for your understanding and reconsideration, — Cirt (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this portrait. --Tremonist (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]