Opposefor now. Fails criterion 5 which requires geocoding "unless it would not be appropriate to do so". Unfortunately, there is no exception for images that fail only because location information is not available. Here, though, the specimen was taken from the Belgian Continental Shelf, which should be enough to give at least an approximate location. Happy to support when that is added. --MichaelMaggs16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocation is not applicable for an organism which was caught 'somwhere' at sea and photographed years later in the lab. Lycaon18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the nominator on this. Geodata should only be added when the location is known with quite some certainty. If the precision is too low it may be misleading instead. If geodata declines continues this way, I think we need to intitiate a discussion about the geocoding requirement on COM:VIC to see if the current description is adequate and helps establish the goals of this project. I am probably more inclined to supporting more exceptions than currently stated based on "Common(s) sense". -- Slaunger23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. My previous comment was wrong as this is s studio shot, and the whole basis of geocoding is to record the camera rather than the subject position. So it is not needed. --MichaelMaggs06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is an exemplar of the sort of photograph that Valued Images should recognize. It is a high quality micrograph, not just the best photograph, but the only illustration of an entire genus.[1] I will support it when it is added to a gallery page for the species. Walter Siegmund(talk)14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With reference to COM:TOL it does not have to be in a species gallery if the taxo tree in questions is only sparsely populated (as is the case here). No need to build deep taxo hierarchies when there are no media to put there. Should mere media come by it can be rearranged later as the need arises. -- Slaunger 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) My recollections of what is stated was incorrect. -- Slaunger14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO crit 6 is OK. When the taxo tree is so sparsely populated as here I think it is OK that it is not in a species gallery. -- Slaunger14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
