Here’s what I’ve used the last couple of days, when flipping “Needs ID” T. officinale or T. erythrospermum observations to Genus Taraxacum. It’s probably longer than ideal (and I’ve seen others make much shorter comments about it) but this gives the observer the big picture, and links to the best online conversations I’ve seen, so they can make up their own minds. So far, given the scope of the task at hand, I’ve only been flipping them where we can’t see the seeds (even though those surely need done, too), so if you’re going comment while flipping those, you’ll want to modify the language somewhat.
“Dandelion taxonomy is a mess right now (see, e.g., here, here, and here). Some North American flora guides say it’s sometimes possible to distinguish between T. officinale (Common Dandelion) and T. erythrospermum (Red-seeded Dandelion) based on leaves, but seemingly more say you need a close look at the seeds (not present here). Also, iNat uses Plants of the World Online for its taxonomy, which differs from typical North American flora guides, and it seems many/most botanists acknowledging the POWO framework don’t think hardly any dandelion in the USA can be accurately identified to species level based only upon pictures, and even if they can be, they’re not T. officinale or T. erythrospermum. Based on all that (and more!), I think the best we can do on this observation is Genus Taraxacum (Dandelions).”