The lighting in the OP is much worse than in the current image and even gives the subject red-eye.
Is there a rule against using filtered images? A red-eye filter is trivial, but it would still be a filter. But I think even most cameras do this automatically in portrait mode.
No,* although I was referring to why the image as-is wouldn’t be used. Images sometimes undergo minor editing for things like color correction, watermark removal, etc. It’d be preferable if the original image didn’t have the red eye, but the correction isn’t a huge deal. The poor lighting is the much more severe issue.
* There are different levels of “rules” on the English Wikipedia. I’d categorize them into “policies with legal considerations”, policies, guidelines, the Manual of Style, and norms.
Policies are widely accepted Wikipedia standards everyone has to abide by like “verifiability”; the ones with legal considerations are even more serious like “libel”.
Guidelines, like “offensive material”, are best practices supported by consensus that editors weigh when making decisions. Often more specific than policies.
The Manual of Style does what it says on the tin and answers your question about red-eye correction. It’s concerned with nitty-gritty technical stuff like when to use certain punctuation, how long a lead section should be, etc. Everything everywhere must abide with few exceptions, although the MoS is so extensive that things slip through the cracks all the time – usually inconsequentially.
Norms are informal standards outside of policies and guidelines that editors (sometimes only in a specific subject field) usually agree on. As a specific example, most major cities of the world have a collage showing different landmarks, but this isn’t written anywhere. Wikiprojects (collaborations over a specific field, e.g. astronomy) often have their own best practices for their specific fields. And there are “essays” – which are opinion pieces editors can easily link to that often describe norms (they don’t have to; they can just be an editor’s pet peeve) but which aren’t binding. A classic example of the essay is about “coatrack articles”.
Is there a rule against using filtered images? A red-eye filter is trivial, but it would still be a filter. But I think even most cameras do this automatically in portrait mode.
No,* although I was referring to why the image as-is wouldn’t be used. Images sometimes undergo minor editing for things like color correction, watermark removal, etc. It’d be preferable if the original image didn’t have the red eye, but the correction isn’t a huge deal. The poor lighting is the much more severe issue.
* There are different levels of “rules” on the English Wikipedia. I’d categorize them into “policies with legal considerations”, policies, guidelines, the Manual of Style, and norms.