Comment Worried that this image - which has the top removed to show the inside - might be misleading if made the exemplar for the species. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAgree with Adam. Also please format the scope according to guidelines -> Scientific name (English name), subscope. Lycaon (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note, it's a great image, but when the scope is this broad, an unusual preparation probably isn't expected. What does everyone think of a scope like "Cardiospermum halicacabum, interior of fruitcase"? Too specific? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very good image, and shouldn't have problems at QI, but I wouldn't write off having this as a more specific scope too quickly =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Scope typo fixed. Please add the English name (Balloonvine) (?)Done by nominator, order of the words in the scope fixed by Myrabella (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confirm my opposition now on scope. This scope seems to be a subscope of fruit, which is a subscope on its own. Too narrow IMO. Lycaon (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
