we seem to have a few issues under discussion at the same time here and i think it would be helpful to separate them maintaining old fas as said december this article was promoted to fa in when standards were less demanding so work is needing to keep it close to current fa standard unfortunately the committee process advocated by doesn't work if the committee is slow to respond in oct i pointed out some serious scientific errors in dinosaur another old fa nothing happened so in jan i gave notice of my intention to fix these points a few days later after nobody objected i fixed them and a few days later the corrections were reverted so that the article again contained the errors i'd pointed out months earlier quality of images this one has the potential to run for a long time i have no strong objections to the image per se but i'm not sure the article needs a reconstruction of a juvenile t rex' selection of images wikipedia is not a picture gallery and images need to be used selectively imo if we have have plenty of images as we appear to for dinosaurs we should use those that illustrate the content rather than just providing eye candy in many cases diagrams should take priority over pure pictures size and placement of images there has been recent disussion of this at wikipedia talk manual of style forcing lead image plus a more general wikipedia talk manual of style item that's now archived and i can't find it and at wikipedia talk accessibility image position to sum up my own views images that illustrate specific content should be alongside that content layout of pages that use images has become more difficult as widescreen monitors have become more prevalent as increasing the text width reduces the height of paragraphs sections etc i dislike left floating images as this makes the text less readable by changing the postion of the start of the next line so that users have to search for it rather than jump to a familiar x co ordinate the functions of images vary sometimes they convey a lot of detailed info and a larger size than the default is needed on other occasions they need give only a general impression of what something looks like and a smaller size than the default is adequate the majority of readers are unregistered and therefore cannot set preferences for image size or anything else hence editors have to pick image sizes that are appropriate for the purpose accessibility to users with poor vision but not functionally blind is irrelevant as they will either have their browsers set permanently on zoom in or have software that zooms in for all apps makes ugly gaps in the text and reduces the readability of articles imo all these points indicate that mos cannot dictate a one size fits all solution and editors should be free to set image sizes