Oppose I think the scope somehow collides with the one of your (beautiful) valued set The deterioration of an iceberg, which illustrates the process far better than this picture (since the scope is about a dynamic process, a set seems more appropriate indeed). To be precise, to me "melting" is included in "deterioration" (for an iceberg). --Eusebius (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see your point, but I think the processes illustrated are quite different. In the deterioration image set the evident processes leading to deterioration is calving and melting due to contact with sea water, whereas here, we see melting water on top of the iceberg due to melting caused by the warmer atmosphere as well as irradiation from the sun. Of course, in both cases, all processes are at work diminishing the iceberg, only the image set and this photo illustrates different processes. Would it help if the scope was more specific to the melting caused by air and irradiation? -- Slaunger (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to discuss the detail level of a scope. I feel that "deterioration of an iceberg" is precise enough, and that any sub-scope would be too much. But I'm forced to rely on my personal opinion here... --Eusebius (talk) 06:18, 8 September 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Oppose Sorry, I am not happy with that scope. To me it is too narrow and is more a description of what is shown than a generic field that someone might want to look up. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but now, at least, you have seen it, and I can assure you it was a stunning view, although the image quality may not be that good;-) Thank you both for taking your time to review it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
