Review
(criteria) |
- @Pandakekok9:
 Done, although there is currently no other media in commons related to the broader scope so it might also be the most valued representation in Xiaomi Mi MIX Alpha as a whole.--17jiangz1 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Best in scope and used. Also nice SVG. --pandakekok9 07:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Sorry, I can't see any value in this. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Support per above. The photo is all black, but we see the shape, so it's IMO useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The picture reminds me of my attempt to photograph a nonexistent black cat in the dark basement without light. I can not see anything but a black rectangle. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Spurzem: It doesn't matter if the image looks like a plain black rectangle; it can still be best in scope. However, the scope currently links to a Wikipedia article instead of a Commons category. @17jiangz1: Can you fix that? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Hallo Percival Kestreltail, I see a black, obviously three-dimensional rectangle with rounded edges and nothing more. It could easily be described clearly in the article. For me it is therefore not a necessary or valuable picture. Please nothing for bad and friendly greetings -- Spurzem (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Spurzem, and friendly greetings to you, too. Of course, there is only the same picture and what I see is also a black, obviously three-dimensional rectangle with rounded edges and nothing more. But that is what the subject should look like; it is a smartphone and it looks like a black rectangle. It's a boring photo, but it still could be the one that best shows what the phone looks like. (Note: Because the scope does not link to the category I have not had a look at the other images of the phone, so there is the possibility that there are better images in the scope. I am waiting for 17jiangz1 to correct the scope.) —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kestreltail: Why do you not support the image if it is the best of this object in your opinion? -- Spurzem (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spurzem: Because the scope does not link to the category. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kestreltail: But this is a mistake that you could easily fix yourself if you care so much about a good rating of the photo. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why don't you use "Category:Black" for the scope or create a subcategory of it? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to get the VI-label? But to be serious, this picture does not show the shape of a smartphone, just some shade at the rim of something black. Hence I'm sorry to insist, it's useles to me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spurzem: I honestly don't care if this passes or not. I have no special emotional attachment to the image, since I didn't make it and it really is just a black rectangle. Fixing the scope should be the responsibility of the nominator. But if this actually is the best in scope, then I hope that it does get promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My bad. As long as it links to a Wikipedia article instead of a relevant Commons category, I cannot support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: The error is irrelevant. The question is whether a black rectangle can be a valuable image. My Opinion: It can't. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment I respectfully do not. If the subject of the image is a black rectangle, then the image SHOULD look like a black rectangle. If it didn't, then it would not be portraying the subject accurately. VIC isn't a place where we promote interesting images and decline boring images, it's where we promote images that best portray the subject. If the subject looks like a black rectangle, then so should the image. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment I realize that. I suppose, in a way, I understand the origin of the opinion too, but I don't understand how, even after explanation, an educated person could still hold it. I hope that makes sense. No hard feelings.
 —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
