Talk:Cecilia Suárez

Image
Hey, you removed the infobox image from 2019 with the reason that "it is very poor quality". Respectfully, I suggest getting a new monitor because that photograph is literally in 4K with three clear focal distances - you can see the flecks of makeup on her forehead and eyelashes. Compared to the 2017 one (which isn't bad), it's a massive upgrade in terms of quality. It's just a bit smaller in terms of dimensions, but even makes up for that by being closer to the subject (we don't need to see her legs) and is preferred because she's facing the camera. There are probably arguments against using it, but being lower quality than the 2017 photo is inaccurate, and saying it's of very poor quality is just wrong. I am just confused at why you would claim that. Kingsif (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2019 .(UTC)
 * I am drawing on what he says MOS:IMAGES. The image you provided is not so bad, but it looks like it is a screenshot. And I do not understand why the article should be illustrated with that image, when there is one of better quality. It is not current, but it is always recommended to use good quality images in the information box. If none exists, a screenshot could be used.--—  Bradford     (Talk)  06:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a screenshot, but MOS:IMAGES makes no distinction; is a screenshot by nature deemed inferior quality to a photograph? I don't think the 2017 image is better quality - not a screenshot is a benefit, but then it also has factors that make it inferior (including, yes, not being current). Weighing them, they could be about the same, and I would err on the more recent. But I don't mind so much because 2017 isn't that long ago, I just don't understand the quality argument. Kingsif (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)