Support This photo is much prettier and higher-quality than the other. The angle is different, which presents a challenge for comparison, but the details are much more clearly seen in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: I am trying to better understand your statement.
The name “Fram” is clearly visible on both sides of the hull, as is the company name “Hurtigruten”, owner/operator of the ship. The IMO number, unique to the ship, is only found on the stern of this ship and neither of these review images show that side. There is lots of further info, including GPS coordinates, in the image description, as the VI criteria recommends.
This is not a full-frontal view of the ship but a three-quarter view from the front. As Ikan has noted, it can be more of a challenge to compare different views of the same ship. However, I am reluctant to re-write the scope to add viewing angle as I think this is unnecessarily too tight.
Are you saying that a side profile view of a ship would inherently be more valuable than this three-quarter frontal view, even with the enhanced visible detail of physical characteristics like the line of portholes in the hull that would distinguish the identity of this ship? --GRDN711 (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A side view is more valuable in describing a ship than a front view. The scope must be reduced to frontal view and this image will be able to return without problem in the normal competition. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Archaeodontosaurus: I accept your point and will withdraw this image of the Fram; redefine the scope as you suggest and enter it as a standalone VI nomination. However, I'm not done yet. I have other side profile views of this ship that may work better as suitable competition for the current Fram VI holder and will consider uploading one for MVR. --GRDN711 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
