tl;dr: for anybody who has eaten strawberries, a picture of a strawberry is not "worth a thousand words".
I removed the extra content from the answer, because it did not contribute to the answer, and constituted unwanted promotion of a restaurant (regardless of whether you are affiliated). We don't have one-size-fits-all rules on "no brand names" and similar, but we do moderate away gratuitous name-dropping.
In this case, I saw no reason for having the restaurant name and link there, or the pictures. What extra information would they carry? You don't need to provide proof that there are restaurants which use strawberries. This is a very plausible statement, and we believe it without requiring proof. Also, there is no need for visual illustration - people can imagine what a cut-and-cooked strawberry looks like.
The remaining one-line answer is indeed flimsy. If you wish to improve it, you should provide arguments why strawberries are a better substitute than any other fruit.
The second post was deleted, because it was flagged as "not an answer", and I agree with the flagger. There is, again, a large and unnecessary picture, but the text contains no information on how it is cooked. Saying that the broth can be made from chicken or fish is only the barest beginning of an explanation, and else the post contains no useful information.
Note that we don't automatically delete all pictures in general, but look at how useful they are for the readers. I also saw your post on another question, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/123666/4638https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/123666/4638. It also contains a picture. Since it is a food identification question, the picture there makes a lot of sense, and so the post was not moderated in any way.