Oppose per my reasoning on Elephanthead Lousewort discussion. It is extremly hard to tell what you're looking at at thumb size, something which in my opinion limits its usefulness. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would be kind enough to suggest which image is more valued for this scope, also? I didn't see any criteria that referenced the thumb size. Perhaps you might cite a criterion for your evaluation based on thumb size, or does your comment applies to the review size, as well? Walter Siegmund(talk)19:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as with the other one the reference was to review size. I have looked at the review size image again and my objection for both pictures remains the same, I can barely see the plants. Also while I know it is not part of criteria, the size of an image used in an article is often smaller than review size, and I feel that this fact should also be weighed to an extent (in other words if I can't tell what the image is when I see the thumb on the VIC page, it might not be that usable, which is what VI is about.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I have looked over most of the images in the scope its hard to find one that shows the entire plant. That being said my vote remains the same, regardles of the quality of the other images, this image is not of sufficient quality at review size or lower to be considered exceptionally useful, which is what VI is about. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
