This image, used in three articles, illustrates the red to reddish-green calyx with recurved lobes and stamens that are longer than the calyx lobes. These are notable and distinguishing features of this species. -- Walter Siegmund(talk)
Question Before promoting. In the famous gallery, we have already this picture, by the same author, promoted as VI. Do we really need TWO VI of the (almost) the same subject, even if we have here the subscope "inflorescence", in the same gallery ? I think no, and I think a MVR should be the good way to do. I agree the more we have VI and scopes, the best it is, but in this specific case, I'm not sure, because I feel it confusing.--Jebulon (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answer. Maybe because i'm not a specialist, I'm not convinced by your explanations. In my poor opinion, it is (more than) a bit confusing. A lot of scopes is a good thing, but too many scopes is not good! I think the two pictures are too similar, but I don't oppose. Maybe other opinions could be helpful.--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
