Comment Edited scope formatting. Archaeodontosaurus is correct. The image description (on the file page) should indicate that this individual is cultivated. Genus is always capitalized; species is lower case; both are italicized, but higher taxa are not. That should be fixed on the file page. I'm not sure I can support this fine image because it doesn't appear to be typical in color for the species. Walter Siegmund(talk)17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've a problem here, amigos. One of you (Archaeodontosaurus) says : if you delete album (means white if I'm not wrong) from the scope, I will support. The other (Walter Siegmund) says: I changed the scope and delete album (still means white), but cannot support because colour is not typical for the species (I agree with this, that's why the scope initially was rhododendron arboreumalbum. And it's one of the reasons for nominating). I'm not a botanist, I've only this. What do you both want I do now, please ?----Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find a good source for Rhododendron arboreum ssp. album. Efloras lists Rhododendron arboreumvar.album Wall., [1] but doesn't indicate the status of that name. I'm not sure that a variety subscope for this species could be justified. Apparently, there are a number of subspecies and varieties. I found a source that says, "The best known form of R. arboreum has tight, globular trusses of around twenty blood red flowers".[2] A photograph of such an individual may be a better illustration of this species. Walter Siegmund(talk)17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but this flower exists, and it's white, and album means white. You say you have no good source, but I've one you can read ! The Parc Floral de Paris (pfp on the plaque) is full of scientists and well known botanists, I can't imagine they could made a so important mistake ! Your other source says "the best known form etc...". Maybe this one is not the best known one but, I repeat, it exists !--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The standard is verifiability, not truth. We base our content on reliable published sources so that other editors can verify its accuracy. Plaques in botanical gardens may not be current or accurate. I don't think a subscope is appropriate because of the lack of published sources and because it is too narrow. I think a red flower subspecies or variety may be a better illustration of the species but the quality of this image is superior to the other images in the species scope and shows the flower and leaves well. So, I support this image in the species scope. Walter Siegmund(talk)01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
