Comment - OK, understood, but that image shows the entire group of rocks and this doesn't, so how can this be sufficiently useful? I question that. Maybe neither photo should be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least temporarily, per my comment above. I doubt this can really be a VI without being a picture of the entire rock formation, or at least the great majority of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to look at satellite photography (here) you see that this geological formation is far in width but far in length. Your demands are disproportionate, and this opposition vote incomprehensible. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The other picture shows much more of the formation, though. So why is it unreasonable to think that a good photo that encompasses a fuller view of the formation is possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you apply your reasoning we will stop everything and wait for better images. The good progress of the project is to reserve the negative votes for flagrant anomalies of our operation. In this case we have two images: one that has a technical problem and one that is very acceptable. It is not perfect but if a better image comes it can pass in MRV because the specificity of our label is not definitive. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you think this is a good enough illustration to be worthy of the VI designation, I'll remove my opposing vote, but in cases like this, I appreciate a discussion, at least. And I don't take back any of the substantive criticisms I made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to quibble with your argument a bit, though. In no way is my argument to "stop everything and wait for better images". The fundamental question is whether this is a complete enough picture of the scope to be useful enough to merit being called a VI. You surely won't suggest that's not a legitimate criterion, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
