Question Note how I fixed the appearance of your scope. Is the photo recognizably distinctive, in that a viewer could tell this apart from another swamp-like location? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for viewing the photo. I think so. This can be seen from the vegetation: The trees are bright representatives of the marsh forms of pine and birch, the marsh grass cover, typical of the swamps of temperate latitudes. It can be seen that by type, this swamp belongs to the flat swamps of the forest type ... (if I understood your question correctly). -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure. What I'm asking is whether this view is distinguishable from views of all other swamps. Maybe that's too much to ask for, but in general, we look for recognizably identifiable scopes and images that clearly show them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I understand. Yes, but for swamps, steppes, deserts, it is difficult and not always possible to find landmarks that distinguish them from each other. On the other hand, such photos can be very useful to specialists. In my picture, only a piece of an unnamed lake is visible, which is in this swamp, although it may be in other places... In any case, thank you for watching and reviewing! Александр Байдуков (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This question is difficult to resolve. Our friend's argument is very fair but ... we need an element that will validate the uniqueness of the scope: an indicator panel, a piece of building, a montage, or even a piece of rock that cannot be disputed. Alas here I do not see it.
You have already uploaded a lot of very good quality images. Almost all are eligible for IV. You chose the only one that isn't. We don't blame you; but to make you forgive: place them in VI! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
