Review (criteria)
|
Comment Rather narrow scope. What about protection of sea turtle nests? Lycaon (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that does fit the images better, scope is now changed. However I do think the Florida bit should stay in, as the posted signs specifically mention Florida law. --ianaré (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well yes, it does mention Florida law, but can you envision a scope for turtle protection for every separate location? That would be too narrow IMO. Other opinions? Lycaon (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would support with a wider scope. Yann (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Scope changed from protection of sea turtle nests in Florida to protection of sea turtle nests --Lycaon (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Support The set matches the scope: interesting images. Yann (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
|