Oppose for the sake of argument: This is of course a superbly useful picture, but the size of the preview on the file page is 797 × 80 pixels. At 1,024 × 103 pixels, the labels are still invisible, and even at 1,280 × 129 pixels, which takes up almost the entire page width. So at what size are we saying this photo is useful for the purposes of an online article? Full size only, which is humongous? I think in the other case, it was debatable whether a very large file looked reasonably good and was useful at review size. In this case, I have trouble seeing any justification under current guidelines to declare that this is a Valued Image, despite its great value if it is viewed at a very large size that's much larger than review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the {{Panorama}} display, these files are now perfectly integrated into the articles in a natural way without having to open them at a high resolution. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I rather agree with you, actually. But what does that mean for how we will judge photos? Should we require that they actually be presented in panorama format in an article before supporting them? That would violate the consensus against requiring that photos be used outside Commons. Anyway, I'll cross out my oppose vote because I don't really believe in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are in the presence of exceptional work, the image itself, the work on the caption... It was a very didactic document that took a lot of time. But you're right our rules should make us reject it. This is a dilemma that we can resolve through piecemeal discussion. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
