It is the best and most complete figure on commons explaining the principle and limitations of a tactile stylus surface profiling instrument. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk)
Comment If the scope is “Principle of a tactile profilometer” image is the best, but the real scope is “Profilometers” and the best image is that of the machine. Change the scope? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This file is used in en:Roughness and on two other projects; I think the subscope is fine. It may be better worded as "Profilometry". This image satisfies 5 criteria with a valid exception claimed for geocoding. It is important to recognize artwork as especially valuable in explaining concepts and mechanisms. I don't find the photograph of the machine as valuable as this one.Walter Siegmund(talk)16:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your support Walter! I have choosen the scope as "principle of a tactile profilometer" because the picture is not showing a real profilometer but explaning it's working principle and it's fundamental properties. As I understood linking the scope is only good practice to allow reviewers to find competitive images easier. In my understanding the real scope is given by the text and not by the link. Anyway there is no category or gallery principle of tactile profilometers I could have linked to. Am I misinterpreting the VI guidelines doing so? –– Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCOM:VISC lists "A visually distinct type or significant aspect of an object" (example 2) as a suitable scope, so I think it is fine. Its use in articles on three projects demonstrates that it is a significant aspect and a diagram is visually distinct from a photograph of the machine. Walter Siegmund(talk)19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This broader scope would include images of surface profiles, photographies of profilometers, optical profilometers, applications of profilometers, etc.. I think this is to broad for a scope. That was the reason why I have choosen the "principle" scope. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
