Comment Sorry, but criterion 3 requires "reasonable sharpness". IMO VI should at least take care of a minimum quality standard. Otherwise, there will be an inflation of less than mediocre pictures. Other reviewers may think differently. --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand that the photograph could be technically better, but it is the best portrait of Shamsia Hassani in Commons, even with the detailed indicated by Palauenc05. Yann, the photograph is useful but it isn't used, so I recommend you to use the photograph in its article or its Wikidata item. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What did I indicate? But since you pinged me: I would have to say this photo is useful; however, the blurriness is unfortunate, and I don't think every useful picture ipso facto merits the "VI" label. Because of my conflicting feelings about this photo, I have not voted pro or con on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: oh, excuse me Ikan Kekek, I wanted to mention Palauenc05. I was wrong, probably I copy the username to not make a mistake, but I made it. One more time, excuse me; I am going to replace your username in my last comment. Of course, all the opinions and votes are respectable, the only requirement (I think) is to argue if there is any conflict. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is probably the wrong place to discuss the issue, but we should think about certain criteria which guarantee a minimum quality to get the VI label. As I mentioned above, for me, 98 KB is way below any acceptable size. Yann, where would be your limit now? 50 KB or 10 KB? Or even less? According to the existing rules, theoretically a 5 KB image would also deserve the label. Strange, isn't it? Besides, back to the image we are talking about, it's a pity for the fine composition which would deserve a decent quality. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Palauenc05: the criterion is "looks good on-screen at the review size" (which is the size you see on the individual review subpage, not the thumbnail on the candidate list) - see COM:VICR #3. In any case, file size is not a good indicator of quality, as it depends on what is shown in the image. For example, unless you use a completely uncompressed file format, shooting a flower in the studio in front of a plain, single color background will most likely result in a much smaller file size than shooting the same flower in your garden – simply because the plain background compresses well and needs much less storage. However, the "smaller" studio file may very well be much better than the garden picture. If you want to raise the bar, make the review size larger (in terms of pixels). There is actually a quite recent discussion on this at Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list#Valued_images_and_thumbnail_size (which would have been a better place for this discussion, by the way) Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
