Not really, in the scope you mention the word 'ripe' is indeed superfluous, but that scope is more than half a year old and we've been fine-tuning since.
My major qualm with the scope however is that you see fruits here (within their husks) and even the so-called nuts are technically (botanically) spoken drupes and not nuts. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Juglans regia (Common walnut), unripe nuts to Juglans regia (Common walnut), unripe fruit
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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".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 No more reasons to oppose. Though I would have dropped the 'unripe' bit (I know, I had one with ripe, but... ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question A VIC set has just been nominated for the scope "Juglans regia (Walnut)", and it includes images of unripe fruits. Could both receive the VI label, this VIC and the set? This question to be sure, and also thinking of possible VICs and VISCs about buildings and monuments. --Myrabella (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's explicitely possible for one image to be VI in a narrow and a wider scope. I see it consequent to have the general possibility for an image to be alone in a narrow and part of a set of a wider scope. Thus said, I always scopes like unripe fruit very narrow. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My wonder was about different images for the same purpose, one as a VI and the other as a part of a VI set, but I think it is possible because "criteria 1, 2 and 3 should be applied to the set taken as a whole; it is not required that each individual image be capable of satisfying these criteria in its own right." --Myrabella (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dare to file an Oppose for this narrow scope. To show stages of a plant, a well planned set is better than a collection of subscopes. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
