Since the issue regarding this photo has been resolved, I'm going to close this thread.

It is expected that when uploaders submit a photo with multiple minerals, that the identified minerals should be differentiated, either in the caption or as photo annotations; this is prescribed in the upload instructions for photos intended to be in the public galleries. In this case the minerals weren't differentiated, and the issue has been raised with the person who submitted the photo. If after a reasonable amount of time the uploader hasn't responded, it's possible the photo will be moved from the public galleries to a user-only gallery until a resolution is reached.

While managers and photo experts may occasionally make minor edits on already-existing photo captions (e.g. last week it was observed someone had accidentally written "olivine" when they clearly intended "olivenite" on a particular photo caption), it is not the job of managers or photo experts to be deriving new captions for photos; this is the uploaders' responsibility. Despite the rare mineralogy and good photo composition, I personally would not have approved this photo, since again it is explicit in our specimen upload rules that multiple minerals need to be differentiated; whoever approved the photo apparently opted to put less weight on that directive and instead decided to emphasize other criteria instead.

For the reason outlined above by Frank, my answer is also no.

It is the sole responsibility of the person submitting the photo to appropriately caption it.

As Frank also points out, as managers we can and do make minor edits, for instance spelling mistakes as and when they are observed.

I do completely agree that all uploaded photographs should include some form of caption to inform viewers or what or why a specimen or indeed other image is significant enough to upload so any viewer can appreciate it whether they are a novice or highly experienced individual.