Talk:José Chávez y Chávez

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jose Chavez y Chavez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215011856/http://www.southernnewmexico.com/travel-guide/ofinterest/people/jos-chavez-y-chavez-hombre-muy-malo to http://www.southernnewmexico.com/travel-guide/ofinterest/people/jos-chavez-y-chavez-hombre-muy-malo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Enhanced photo
I have noticed that user FiddleStix1217 added an "enhanced" picture to this and many other biographies (see e.g. the contributions of this IP and those of the user in general). While technically stunning, I doubt these picture make sense for Wikipedia: it was probably enhanced starting from the corresponding file on Wikimedia Commons, which is based on his mugshot (here seen complete in an external link). I found another picture of him on Facebook, and if you compare the three of them, you can see that the beard shown in the enhanced picture is either non recognizable (in the original mugshot that was also on Commons) or darker and different from the one on the FB picture (assuming that it was even shot at the same moment, since the coat looks considerably darker - maybe it's just a different camera?).

In general, photo-enhancing techniques based on neural networks create good-looking pictures but can insert details that, while overall likely, are not present in the original picture (due to the original media resolution not capturing them, but also not present in the original subject at all). I suspect these pictures are either out of place for Wikipedia and more suited for a Netflix documentary or a popular science magazine, or should come with a big warning that the wonderful details are interpretation of an AI (for some context on the implications of this, see for example this article). --2A02:58:14F:CB00:5532:5D33:BF8C:8C02 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)