No, I'm not sure, otherwise I'd have opposed. Maybe a mention of the kind of building on which it is used could be interesting, if it justifies the use for this technology. I'm currently thinking about my review, will come back later :-) --Eusebius (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) Geolocation is relevant IMO, it is not a studio pic. I also have some problems with the word link in the scope. It show a receptor or a transmitter, IMO, but not a link as such Lycaon (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see the relevance of location, nevertheless I provided the coordinates. You are right about my choice of scope though, it is indeed poor. Technically this device is a Free Space Optical transceiver, I believe. How about it? I also noticed a slight editing artifact to the bottom-right of the mast. Can I crop the image a bit while its still under review? adamantios (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the scope, I would drop the capital letters, but it's of for me (you can include a link to the english article in the scope). You can edit your image, it will not change anything to the VI review I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
