I think that it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image for this subject, so lower quality may sometimes be allowed.
Q𝟤𝟪07:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, I think, though it's one that's going to be very hard for us to judge. This kind of image - lower quality, but possibly an iconic image of a tragedy - is really hard to judge if you don't speak the language. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8% of all
FPs03:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Technical quality is still criterion 1 at
WP:FP?. While this image may meet 4-7, it fails 1-3. Zhwiki might have different standards, but I don't think it meets ours. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ahecht (
talk •
contribs)
20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment, as per FP sub-criteria 1.4 this could bypass the first three sub-criteria's 1.1 to 1.3. This then raises the question whether the image meets 1.4. As per criteria 2 there is also an exception clause which could apply to this image. This could also pass the other requirements, even 3. However, coming back to uniqueness and the historical clause, I would say no. This is based on the reasoning that this is the second level of separation from the main incident. Further this second level of separation does not convey enough. This can also be compared with similar images that media houses have used, say with the number of flowers varying or the angle. While I have rejected the image as per FP's objective and subjective clauses, I am leaving this as a comment. These kind of journalistic images, off-hand, taken in the moment, are rare on Wikipedia. Placed alongside text and more context the images can wonderfully add to Wikipedia's voice.
FacetsOfNonStickPans (
talk)
13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image for this subject, so lower quality may sometimes be allowed.
Q𝟤𝟪07:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, I think, though it's one that's going to be very hard for us to judge. This kind of image - lower quality, but possibly an iconic image of a tragedy - is really hard to judge if you don't speak the language. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8% of all
FPs03:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Technical quality is still criterion 1 at
WP:FP?. While this image may meet 4-7, it fails 1-3. Zhwiki might have different standards, but I don't think it meets ours. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ahecht (
talk •
contribs)
20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment, as per FP sub-criteria 1.4 this could bypass the first three sub-criteria's 1.1 to 1.3. This then raises the question whether the image meets 1.4. As per criteria 2 there is also an exception clause which could apply to this image. This could also pass the other requirements, even 3. However, coming back to uniqueness and the historical clause, I would say no. This is based on the reasoning that this is the second level of separation from the main incident. Further this second level of separation does not convey enough. This can also be compared with similar images that media houses have used, say with the number of flowers varying or the angle. While I have rejected the image as per FP's objective and subjective clauses, I am leaving this as a comment. These kind of journalistic images, off-hand, taken in the moment, are rare on Wikipedia. Placed alongside text and more context the images can wonderfully add to Wikipedia's voice.
FacetsOfNonStickPans (
talk)
13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply