I think the geo-information is irrelevant to the subject. It was in a garden, but it could be in a studio. Yann (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from the sky being overexposed, it is probably the best illustration in its category. I will support when above requirement is addressed. Lycaon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sky can be corrected, but I don't see what it would add to the scope. A part of the sky can be cropped. Yann (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are really all fit for a VI, it will be difficult too choose actually (even the original one was, the overexposure of the sky was a minor issue). My bone of contention was the geolocation. Rules saya that there should be information on geolocation. It is always relevant unless a specific reason is given why it is not. E.g. when it is a studio picture, the description should say something like "Geo-location not applicable as the photo was take in the lab, or when it is a privacy issue, just give the town or the country, etc. In this case it concerns a national Asian dress but it looks as if the picture was taken in Europe, so IMO this should be somehow clarified. Lycaon (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all the pictures were taken in Europe, but most importantly, the model specially dressed for the pictures, and posed. I don't know how I should express that. Yann (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning geo-location, these images fall within what I would call non-place related shots, and I would not necessarily expect a geolocation for these images. --Slaunger (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
