On a screen, a bead and a statue can appear the same height. Enlarging an image is useful for seeing detail, but it changes our sense of physical size. Before describing an artefact as imposing, delicate or handheld, look for dimensions.
Read the units, then imagine the space
Check whether the record lists centimetres, millimetres or inches. Distinguish height, width and length, and look for notes about whether the measurement includes a mount or base. Do not silently treat the first number as height.
For a harmless comparison exercise, draw a rectangle matching the listed maximum height and width on ordinary paper. Label it as a size guide, not a tracing of the object. It helps you think about scale without claiming to reconstruct the original form.
Ask which side you are seeing
A single photograph may leave the underside, back or edge invisible. If the museum provides additional views, compare them before describing a detail as absent. Something outside the frame is different from something confirmed not to exist.
Likewise, keep visible appearance separate from material identification. A blue-green surface in a photograph is an observation; a catalogue’s identification as faience is information supplied by the record. Our faience introduction offers background for that distinction.
Write a caption that preserves the limits
Include the institution and object number when discussing a specific artefact. If you are referring to a cropped detail, say so. Do not imply that a modern illustration or reconstruction is a photograph of an excavated object.
A good viewing note might finish with a question about the missing side or uncertain scale. This does not weaken the observation. It shows exactly what the image allowed you to see and what you still need the collection record to explain.