Comment must attach the scope to a category. It would be good to have a more detailed caption for a picture VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Good for the caption. But the scope is not correct. A piece can not represent the whole. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This one is much better than File:Veil Nebula (Heic0712g).jpg which is lower resolution and is data from photographic plates, not silicon detectors. I don't agree that it is a requirement that an image depict the entire subject to be the most valued image in that scope. This image depicts a representative and large portion of the nebula and is the most valued in that scope, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund(talk) 01:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree on the quality of the picture. But this image is only part of the nebula. Simply add (Part) in scope so that it is correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I would support this one with the scope changed to Western Veil (NGC 6960). Yann (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with new scope, also. As Jebulon points out in "Is VIC dying", too much concern with the scope can be unhelpful. --Walter Siegmund(talk) 03:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment must attach the scope to a category. It would be good to have a more detailed caption for a picture VI. --
Done..
Support
Oppose
.jpg){kind=link}
