Comment Very good candidate for VI. But the scope and caption are bad. it is necessary to give more importance in the caption especially the age. This burial has a name which can be taken as normative for the scope it is also necessary to give the name of the museum of origin of this piece because I believed understood that it was in temporary exhibition. For example look:Sépulture de Teviec Global.jpg. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: , thank you for your response. I have adjusted the scope accordingly. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scopes aren't supposed to be paragraphs and normally don't have two links in them. A lot of what's currently in the scope belongs in the file description or maybe your reason for nominating (though the reason is purely optional). Could you possibly simplify the scope into a phrase, even if it's a long phrase? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWoman of niederpöring in the Quintana Museum is enough for the scope with the link to the category. But your caption is too weak, you can transfer your comment from the scope to the caption and give a dating mark! --Archaeodontosaurus (
talk) 05:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have created a more comprehensive image description to emphasize the importance of the archaeological finding. --Mosbatho (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful, and thank you! When you have a chance, please add the background information to the German file description, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
