User:Chess/sandbox - Misplaced Pages

< User:Chess

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chess (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 14 June 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:03, 14 June 2024 by Chess (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the user sandbox of Chess. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Misplaced Pages? Submit your draft for review!

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

On the substance of the discussion, editors generally agreed on qualities the photos had, but disagreed on what qualities are most important. As an example, editors agreed that Option A showed Ariana Grande performing and was subjectively a good pose, but acknowledged it was low quality and old. Option B, on the other hand is new and high-resolution, but is "posed almost as though for a driver's license photo!" B2 suffers the same issues but to a lesser extent. Option C is new and high-resolution, but the lighting is horrible.

This makes it difficult to establish a consensus that any of the discussed images are good, since editors more or less agree they fall flat in some areas and there's not much weighing to tell me how important good lighting is versus having an "action shot" of Ariana Grande singing. I would say there is no consensus on those particular images, but editors did gain some consensus on what makes an image "good", which is resolution, recency, depicting the subject in a way related to their notability, and lighting. Editors disagreed on the priority assigned to these different points. As a sidenote to my evaluation of the RfC itself, many editors rejected the premise of the RfC and proposed focusing on finding a new & better photo. Even editors that didn't !vote for the status quo/against the RfC wished that there was a better photo. Since the RfC ended, editors have discovered a new image from a Met Gala video. This image meets the criteria of being well-lit, new, high-resolution, and an action shot of her singing. As far as I can tell, commenters prefer versions of that image (the specific version of such there isn't much consensus on) to any of the ones proposed in this RfC. While that image did not appear during this RfC, it would be silly not to use it for procedural reasons if editors don't have concerns about the image itself.

I was asked for guidance at WP:RFCL on finding a way forwards, and I would recommend continuing discussion on the Met Gala photo. If consensus can be achieved, I don't think it's necessary to have another RfC. In terms of improving discussion quality, I would suggest that editors explain why they believe one aspect of an image is more important than another, instead of just saying that an image is blurry, clear or new. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

test

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.