I think this is overall quite clear, and I like the examples! My only real suggestion for the proposed explanation is making it clear that multiple “incidental” species are allowed. In this sense, the key issue is not that there are
– this technically happens in most observations where there are different species in the background, that an organism is perched on, is a host/parasite of, species are congregated in some way, etc. This wording could lead to inappropriate usage of this DQA for observations that are of mixed species flocks, a multispecies patch of plants, a forest, etc.
To me, the key diagnostic issue is that:
The focal organism/species is not present in all media.
So I might propose wording like
“If you see an observation that does not have the same subject (for example, individual organism or species) present in all media, it’s best to vote…”
In regards to @spiphany’s suggestion, I would prefer keeping the field title as “Evidence related to a single subject” because it isn’t always immediately discernable what the species in an observation is/the observation may not have been IDed to species/the identifier may not know the species that is present.
Making the field title something like
could imply to users of the DQA field that they need to be able to identify the relevant species, which won’t be necessary in most of the uses (in which the pictures obviously show clearly different organisms).
One other consideration might be how the DQA field name/text would be translated though – perhaps “species” would be more easily understandable/interpretable across a variety of languages while “subject” would be vague? A related point was raised by @carnifex here:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/easy-way-to-mark-multiple-species-observations/278/194
On a tangential point, I might also add for the example:
To downvote “Date is correct” as this is the current approach as @DianaStuder mentioned.