Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2013

This is an archive page for featured picture status removal debates. These debates are closed and should not be edited. For more information see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015
2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 - 2022 - 2023 - 2024

Retained

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 09:58:46 (UTC)

 
Delist - The Saint-Just and Saint-Pasteur Cathedral
 
Edit 1 - fixed exposure
Reason
Just promoted, but was underexposed. Edit was added at the end of the nomination but there wasn't time for participants to consider.
Articles this image appears in
Narbonne Cathedral
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Narbonne Cathedral
Nominator
Jujutacular (talk)
  • The brightness of the shot is the result of a combination of things. The scene itself decides the distribution of brightness throughout the frame. The photographer decides the correct exposure to get the brightness of the frame well distributed on the image. Please look at the histogram of the original image. It is literally flat-lined at the top, no information -- it was incorrectly exposed when the picture was taken. Jujutacular (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every image should use all levels of brightness, however. As a simple example, an image of a room filled with dark oak panels probably is going to tend towards the darker side, whilst a close-in shot showing detail in the White Cliffs of Dover is going to be mostly white. The real world doesn't always use the complete brightness spectra, and neither should we. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An image of a room filled with dark oak panels should tend towards the darker side, but it should not be completely flat-lined at the top. At least, not for an encyclopedic photograph. If we wanted to be artistic that would be another matter. Likewise, an image of the white cliffs of Dover should tend towards the brighter side, but should not be flat-lined on the darker side. The image at hand, should definitely not be flat at the bright side of the spectrum, it is a picture taken out in the open in midday. Jujutacular (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked. There's a gradual trailing off in the upper range, as one would expect in an image that isn't over exposed. It doesn't "flat line", it just doesn't have a LOT of bright whites. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 16:00:37 (UTC)

 
Jesse Jackson speaking during an interview on July 1, 1983.
 
Proposed replacement
Reason
At the original nomination, concerns were raised that this had been overly downsampled. I think those concerns were correct. There is plenty of information in the original that was lost. The fact that the film grain is visible does not mean we have reached the point where there is no more information; film grain, after all, is not uniformly colored. I have started over from the original LOC file, cloned out all dust, and cropped to the borders of the exposed part of the negative. I rotated it according to the original negative frame; the original photograph is tilted, and lining it up with the pipe on the wall at right as a frame of reference would mean either including a sliver of the negative frame in the image or cutting off more of the good reverend's shoulder.
Articles this image appears in
Jesse Jackson, Rainbow/PUSH, many more
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983
Nominator
Chick Bowen

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 23:07:57 (UTC)

 
This panorama was taken on the way to the base camp of Nanga Parbat, also known as the "killer mountain". At 8,125 metres (26,658 feet), it is the 9th highest peak of the world and the 2nd highest peak in Pakistan. The base camp is about a kilometer's trek from here. One glacier is visible on the right side, another glacier can be seen building on the left side.
Reason
Stitching errors, particularly on the left side, showing as translucent, "ghost" images of the mountains intruding into the sky. The edited version is here primarily for comparison, as I don't think what I did, which is cloning out the ghosts is the best solution; it really should be restitched from the original individual photographs. Also, the vertical size is below current size requirements, though within them at the time of nomination. However, the edited version is probably better than what we have now.
Articles this image appears in
Nanga Parbat
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:ApproachingNangaParbat.JPG
Nominator
Chick Bowen
 
Stitching errors removed through cloning.
  • Delist; tentative replaceChick Bowen 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, don't replace. I believe there's other stitching errors and ghosting still remaining that won't all be easy to fix. As you say it really needs a careful restitch from originals. Seems to be one of those cases where an early comment/vote on the foreground hill being a distraction led to basically a referendum on that issue, with the technical issues being overlooked. And while resolution isn't a delist issue, note that a height of 900px was really on the small side even when this was nominated. --jjron (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps I should have said, agree with replacing article usage with the edit. --jjron (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, don't replace with quick edit This should really be replaced with a properly done fix, as Jjron said one that's been restitched from the originals, but barring that it should be delisted. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 07:12:15 (UTC)

 
A 2006 portrait of Barack Obama, President of the United States
Reason
This image is now used only incidentally in 2 articles and not in anywhere near prime placement which all but negates it's EV. Another better image (Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barack_Obama_Portrait) was put forward and shot down and this image survived a delisting nomination for lack of a better alternative, which requires nonlinear logic to understand considering the other images of the President.
Articles this image appears in
Economic policy of Barack Obama and Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011.
Previous nomination/s
nomination - Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Obama_Portrait_2006_trimmed.jpg
delist attempt - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Nominator
Cat-fivetc ----

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2013 at 23:02:12 (UTC)

 
Gone
Reason
Deleted on Commons as a violation of Freedom of Panorama (here). We could have the uploader upload the picture locally, however, as we only need it to be free in the US.
Articles this image appears in
None, now
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Library - Sofia.jpg
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Kept --King of 09:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2013 at 22:56:49 (UTC)

 
A spectacular sunset in Bangkok, showing the skytrain and modern skyline down Thanon Naradhiwas Rajanagarindra, taken from the corner of Thanon Silom, with the Empire Tower and the Chong Nonsi BTS Station at the left side.
Reason
While the image has a striking appearance due to the dramatic sunset, its technical quality no longer meets the minimum requirement for Featured Picture status since it has very small dimensions and has some image noise. It is not even 1 megapixel. Such a picture should be replaceable with a photo taken from the same vantage point during a similar sunset using more modern equipment. The encyclopedic value is also diminished because in the almost ten years since this picture's promotion, new tall buildings have been constructed that would be visible from this location today, such as the W Bangkok. As such, it represents a very outdated view of the rapidly developing city.
Articles this image appears in
Bangkok, Emergence, Golden hour (photography), List of national capitals in East, South, and Southeast Asia, List of neighbourhoods in Bangkok, Urban ecosystem; Empire Tower, Bangkok (a crop thereof); Robot Building (a crop thereof).
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg (A delist for this image was suggested in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Auditorio de Tenerife although it was not actually nominated for delisting)
Nominator
dllu (t,c)
  • Delistdllu (t,c) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the only legitimate reason for delisting above would be the outdated skyline. I don't think there's any significant noise in the photo (it was taken at ISO400 and is downsampled, which minimises visible noise anyway), and we've already agreed that with recent increases in minimum resolution required, we aren't going to apply it retrospectively to existing FPs. But otherwise fair enough, I've never had the opinion that a FP should be for life. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I do not feel that such a small picture of something so large is appropriate. Regardless of minimum sizes and so on, this is too small for a picture of a skyline. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can easily upload a 6 megapixel version of it (perhaps slightly less as it might be cropped), but I think it was a bit motion blurred as I took the photo stretched out of a window to get this view. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure those guidelines didn't exist in that form at the time of upload, but yeah no reason not to upload at max res these days. I've uploaded the original 6MP image over the top of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2013 at 17:37:32 (UTC)

 
Airfield traffic pattern
Reason
The diagram is misleading, incomplete, and incorrect. Compare to http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Airport_Traffic_Pattern_with_Upwind_Leg.svg which correctly places the upwind leg.
  • It is not among Wikipedia's best work. It is a diagram which is a poor example of the subject. Superior diagrams exist in the public domain.
  • It illustrates the subject in a controversial and complex yet incomplete way, leaving the viewer with questions about how a circuit is defined, entered, and exited.
  • It is not verifiable. It is contradicted by facts in the article and by references cited; it is not from a source noted for its accuracy.
  • It was created based on original research and subsequently modified pursuant to arguments on this nomination page. See Wikipedia:NOR#Original images.
Articles this image appears in
Airfield traffic pattern, Final approach (aviation), Non-towered airport.
Previous nomination/s
Nominator
75.210.97.82 (talk)
 
Left and right hand traffic patterns as depicted in the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States of America.
  • Comment. Don't know it it was the right thing to do (and shoot me if it wasn't) but I edited the source file on the Commons to change "Upwind" to "Departure" and tidied the 3D shadow effect a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC) [Updated] Happy to make any other changes needed, e.g. adding the upwind loop, if any get agreed here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Are we certain we're not just enforcing an American bias, by insisting on American terminology, or is upwind called departure worldwide? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain precisely how we are "enforcing an American bias" by delisting as a featured image an image which illustrates a uniquely American pattern using only American terminology? 75.210.240.193 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be slightly odd if the "departure leg" was referred to as "departure" when the aircraft flying it was not departing. Both terms are correct, depending on context; an aircraft taking off or making touch-and-goes would make "departure" correct, while in the latter case it could also be "upwind" - as it would be for an aircraft arriving and making a full pattern. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Final and Departure are in line with the runway. Upwind and Downwind are parallel to but offset from the runway. The Departure leg can be flown only by an aircraft on climb out. The Final Approach leg can be flown only by an aircraft intending to land (or to make a low pass over the runway). See [1] for a diagram. 75.208.82.237 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard both depending on the activity of the aircraft. The terms crosswind, downwind, base, and final are in seemingly universal usage. The upwind/departure leg doesn't seem to have worldwide agreement. The European Aviation Safety Agency has a document that includes a diagram remarkably similar to the original image on which this SVG is based (page 33). In that document, it is referred to as upwind with no mention of departure. A document from the UK based flying school Purple Aviation has the leg labeled as both upwind and departure (page 2). The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia) doesn't label the leg on anything I could find (page 11 for an example). The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand refers to it as the "climb out" and labels it as such on their diagrams (pages 5 and 6). --auburnpilot talk 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Australia's page 23 identifies the climb out as the Initial leg (which is the semantic mirror of Final). Curiously, the upwind leg is also shown, but it is not labeled. 75.208.220.22 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling Departure by the name Upwind is wrong for the same reason that Final is not called Upwind: They are not the same place in the pattern. Yes, Departure is called Upwind by some non-professional pilots; but these same pilots use other incorrect terminology for other things, so that is no basis to mislabel a diagram. Yes, this could be US-centric terminology. So why not just include the official FAA version for what it is and the EASA version for what it is? There are other problems with this diagram being incomplete. Just changing one label does not correct the whole problem. With public domain versions available, I see no reason to reinvent a diagram. If another diagram is needed beyond the FAA and EASA versions, it should be a super-simplified version that omits all entries and exits from the pattern. The EASA document cited by AuburnPilot is not instructive; it does not appear to discuss the traffic pattern - rather it is a pictorial presentation of accident statistics (apparently created in conjunction with NASA).
  • Comment. The issue here is whether the image should be delisted from being a featured picture (not whether it should be edited or deleted). This picture is not among the best on Wikipedia. 75.210.56.4 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason updated. --75.208.173.163 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Following initial criticisms I edited the image. That did not settle the matter. Until this is settled and the image conforms to the outcome, I think featuring it is a bad idea. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --75.208.219.58 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) - Reverted - there is clearly an insufficient quorum for this action, and it certainly can't be judged by the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept No consensus to delist. --Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the rules work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nominations_for_delisting: "For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." This was not so clearly a delist as to merit an exception, and, while you are welcome to renominate after a decent amount of time, if you keep up this sort of behaviour, you're just going to drive everyone away from touching this, you know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion

edit

I have made further changes to the diagram since the above discussion, and have started a continued discussion on its Commons talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 23:13:22 (UTC)

 
Reportedly Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, challenged by IP last year
Reason
Last year an IP raised a fuss about this image, using the FPC talk page and a less extensive rant at the article's talk page. Now, I'm no botanist, and I'm not vouching for the accuracy or lack of accuracy of this image, but as a result of this debate the image has very little use. Jkadavoor attempted to reinsert the image but was reverted almost immediately. Now the image is way, way down in a very, very, very overillustrated article.
Articles this image appears in
Daylily
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus.jpg
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Daylilies have been extensively hybridized and there are many cultivated varieties (cultivars), some of which have then "escaped" and become at least semi-naturalized. It's extremely difficult to tell from a photograph of a flower whether this is the true wild species or a cultivar. The Flora of North America does say that the species "escapes", so it's possible that the image is of the true species. However, the Flora of China says here that H. lilioasphodelus has "lemon-yellow" flowers; the Flora of North America says the same here. I wouldn't describe the colour in the image as "lemon-yellow". To be confident that this is the true species, given that it was photographed a very long way from its native range, it would be necessary to show that all of the description in the Floras applied. An image of a flower simply isn't enough to tell either way. Whether this should lead to delisting I leave to others. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Even if that flower somehow is properly identified in terms of genetics (and I doubt it is), it's not a good iconic illustration as it does not show the lemon yellow, which is a big iconic feature of the subject.TCO (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as above. The current usage is far from ideal. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first discussion I agree with what JJ Harrison said he was told by a herbarium, without a voucher stored and properly identified by a trained botanist, you can't be 100% sure. Some plants, specifically these day lilies hybridize soooo easily and therefore identification is difficult even for experts. Properly identifying a flower from just a picture is almost impossible, and even field identification of many is impossible. Theres enough doubt cast that this isn't a true representation anyway. Personally I'd prefer good high quality photos of herbarium vouchers myself for featuring and putting in articles for plants, to bad most herbariums don't release their digital files under a wiki compatible license. Regardless present usage alone likely requires procedural delist, so Delist. — raekyt 06:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 14:25:35 (UTC)

 
Percival Lowell observing Venus at the Lowell Observatory.
Reason
Though a recent addition to the gallery, the original nomination was contentious because of size issues. This discussion resulted in the evaluation of the image's EV being neglected as well. The most obvious issue with the file is that it is of a low resolution. The previous nomination established that original plates of the image do exist. It stands to reason that a better copy is very much possible, though not available. There is thus no reason for waiving the size requirement we imposed--the image is not of a historical nature that we cannot expect a better quality image. It falls into the unfortunate category of "best free subpar reproduction". That's not our best work, and that's not what we've featured in the past. Had for some reason the original copies been destroyed and this been the highest possible reproduction, it would have been reasonable to let the standards slide. However, this is merely a case of lack of access.
Additionally, the image has remarkably low EV, particularly in its current use. Percival Lowell is better illustrated by other, high resolution images (I see no reason why, for example, a restored version of his lead portrait would not be a good candidate). The Lowell Observatory is poorly illustrated in the image and it has low EV there as a result--that's probably why it's more or less in a gallery. In Great refractor no mention is made of the man or the building and the image s more or less tacked on. Planets beyond Neptune certainly pertains to Lowell and his work, but this isn't the telescope that was used in that inquest and if we're trying to illustrate the man there's clearly better images available.
Also, this may be somewhat bold, but the consensus on the talk page seems to be that the Delist section is on it's way out. While there's some details left to be sorted, the recent Barack Obama picture went through the main section without too much stir. Therefore I've listed this along with the rest of the nominations, marking it clearly as a delisting nomination. Now I'll sit back and bite my nails.
Articles this image appears in
Percival Lowell, Lowell Observatory, Great refractor, Planets beyond Neptune
Previous nomination/s
2006 nomination (not promoted)
2013 nomination (promoted)
Nominator
Cowtowner (talk)
  • DelistCowtowner (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original nominator now notified. Cowtowner (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has a stunning composition that illustrates an important article. I'm not convinced by the size arguments (if we are going to allow exemptions...let's allow them. Plus what matters is use in our 'pedia and as displayed, size is not a problem). Finally, I think running delists on recent images for size or other technical criteria is contentious. Now if you had found out it was non-free or was not Lowell or dropped out of article or if it had been in our bank for a long time, that is a different matter. But just rerunning it? The size is not new information and was considered by the promoters at the time. And the stuff about plates being available is too abstract (if they exist but are unavailable, how is that different than if destroyed?) If you get them fine, upload a new version...but until we have them, we don't have them.TCO (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exemptions are fine, but there has to be justifications for them beyond "I like this picture". To quote the criteria, "Exceptions ... may be made where ... no higher resolution could realistically be acquired.". That's hardly the case here. It's not unrealistic to obtain a scan of a plate that exists. It is where no other copy does. Which is how the two cases are radically different. Accepting that images simply aren't available because we don't possess them while others do but aren't making them available isn't a convincing argument. It opens up the door for featuring more or less any image that we come across. Just making exemptions on the basis that the image is strikingly composed defeats the purpose of even having criteria. Not to mention, it takes this project back a good 6 years or so to days of radically lower standards. As for the image "illustrating" the articles, I'd suggest reviewing the case I made against the image's EV (which I think is just as compelling a reason as the technical deficiencies for this being delisted). It seems to adorn more than anything.
Recency is an irrelevant point-if they were undeservingly promoted they were undeservingly promoted. There's no grace period of featured time before we can or should talk about delisting. There's no point to letting them languish in the gallery out of politeness, or a desire to avoid controversy. While the size issues (or even the EV which got overlooked in the nomination) may not be new, that doesn't make them relevant. Additionally, there is new information, namely the discovery that there are existing plates which was a very late development in the previous nomination. Cowtowner (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm for keep as well, per TCO. But also, don't forget the very first sentence on this page: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". Of course, this should be taken as advice along with the image meeting the criteria, but I, too, think exemptions should be made in the case of extraordinary photos, and this certainly appears to be so. If I saw this on the Main Page, I would want to know more about it. As for the plates being inaccessible, while this isn't necessarily akin to saying they're "destroyed" (quoting TCO), I do think it plays an important role in judging a, and particularly this, photograph. We must work with what we have, and we must get the best of what we have if possible, but "possibility" shouldn't be precluded by impossibility. Obviously it would be most remarkable if Wikipedia had free and welcome access to every locked museum vault in the world, but sometimes the best we can come up with is actually good enough. If anything, this photograph has an immense potential for delist & replace, someday in the far future. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start by reiterating that being a pretty, eye-catching picture is firstly not one of the formal criteria, but a guideline and that even so being eye-catching is not itself cause for waiving the critieria or even loosening them. While being breathtaking may add to an image's case for promotion, it can't make it up entirely. I'll take this from the criteria to illustrate "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing". To quote a different the actual criteria again on exemptions (see above for another example; it states multiple times why we might waive these requirements...and mentions impact all of no times) "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed". Yes, this image is historical, but was taken in a medium that allows for a much higher reproduction. It is hardly impossible to imagine acquiring a higher quality picture. There is one available for purchase scanned at 300DPI which is by any standard low resolution yet still higher than what we have featured. It's also hardly difficult to imagine having it scanned properly at a higher resolution by the museum it's held in. This is hardly an impossible situation like destroyed plates would be. The simple fact of the matter is that everything has to be featured. Yes, Wikipedia has to work with what is available. That's why the image is in the article. But accepting what is merely available as our "best work" defeats the purpose of a featured pictures project. This is not out best by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, we could delist and replace it in the future, but the point here is that it shouldn't have been featured in the first place. We can hope for free access to all vaults in the future, but we don't need to feature substand images like this in the meantime. We have other resources which are far superior and are actually our best work. This is somebody else's mediocre output. Cowtowner (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyone who was involved in the original nomination was well aware of the issues raised above. Nothing has changed. Also, I personally asked the owners of the original glass plate negatives if they would donate a hi-res scan for us, but they declined. That, I think, satisfies the caveat that "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired", unless one takes the word 'realistically' to mean 'forcibly'. This is a beautiful image, even if I do say so myself, hardly 'subpar' or 'mediocre'. :-| nagualdesign (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they won't give it away, but that doesn't make a high resolution copy unrealistic to acquire or impossible (to use the criteria's wording) to acquire a technically superior image. If a higher resolution copy isn't freely available but could be made or exists, then we shouldn't feature this sort of low quality version. This sort of standard results in a very slippery slope. Cowtowner (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2013 at 18:43:06 (UTC)

 
Current Featured Picture An altered version of Audubon's original Plate 66 of the Birds of America, depicting the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
 
Proposed Featured Picture The original version of Audubon's Plate 66 of the Birds of America, depicting the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
Reason
This image is an altered version of the original plate published in Audubon's Birds of America in 1827; while whoever enhanced the image did a good enough job, the original scan is of a far higher resolution, while the other does not meet the size criteria, and, even more significantly, the original scan has the original captioning, an integral part of the engraving, while the enhanced version does not. The initial and unaltered scan contains original caption information about the plate number, the name of the bird, and the specification of which bird is male and which is female, a problem that came up the last time this image was featured. This is not just another 19th-century lithograph of a bird, it is part of one of the most essential publications in the history of natural studies, and the original captioning is utterly essential to the value of the image. It is dishonest to remove it. This image is not only serving as a representation of the Ivory-bill (a role which it is indispensable in), but is also a record of one the most famous and expensive rare books in history; see: List of most expensive books. When this is replaced we will change the image in all the articles it is present in, and we can hopefully use this as a starting point to feature as a series the rest of the priceless prints from Audubon's Birds of America. See the gallery of all the images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mturtle/The_Birds_of_America
Articles this image appears in
Ivory-billed Woodpecker, John James Audubon, List of most expensive books, The Birds of America
Previous nomination/s
https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Ivory-Billed_Woodpecker
Nominator
Indefatigable2 (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2013 at 12:37:21 (UTC)

 
'Publicity Version' Currently the featured picture
 
Original – This is the actual photograph as exposed on the moon by Armstrong. He held the camera slightly rotated so that the camera frame did not include the top of Aldrin's portable life support system ("backpack"). A communications antenna mounted on top of the backpack is also cut off in this picture. When the image was released to the public, it was rotated clockwise to restore the astronaut to vertical for a more harmonious composition, and a black area was added above his head to recreate the missing black lunar "sky". The edited version is the one most commonly reproduced and known to the public, but the original version, above, is the authentic exposure. A full explanation with illustrations can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
Reason
The edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.' The original is more evenly lit, of a higher quality, and, as the authentic exposure, is more honest; the actual exposure is encyclopedia material, not the altered NASA publicity version, which has sadly given fuel to speculation. See the captions to the right.
Articles this image appears in
Original Unaltered Image: 1960s, Apollo 11, Buzz Aldrin, Cold War, Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, Extra-vehicular activity, History of spaceflight, History of the United States (1964–80), Human spaceflight, List of spaceflight records, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Of a Fire on the Moon, Omega Speedmaster, Space exploration, Terrestrial Analogue Sites

The Altered Version Appears in 18 Articles

Previous nomination/s
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
Nominator
Indefatigable2 (talk)
Clarifying my vote per my comments below. I
  • Comment: Since the image's iconic status contributes to EV, consideration should probably be given to the version the public would be most familiar with. The Blue Marble has the upside-down version featured, for example. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The copy we have of the famous version (existing FP) looks like it has been scanned from a print (magazine or poster) and is much higher contrast with less tonal detail and some vignetting. However, the "original" version actually looks a bit low-contrast on the suit. I wonder if we can get a better quality version of the famous crop? The "original" version's crop is just bad and no wonder it wasn't used directly for publicity. The claim that the "edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.'" is completely false. Both images lack the antenna. There is no such thing as "the authentic exposure", though our copy of the famous version does look more manipulated. For the purpose of a thumbnail in a WP article, the famous one still wins imo. Colin°Talk 11:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC) On NASA's site there is this version which is different again, though is cropped at the bottom and has the usual NASA web-page problems with small size and heavy JPG compression. Colin°Talk 16:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not 'completely false.' On the original, the antenna is naturally excluded from the image, while on the altered version, a black space is created where in reality there would be none. The antenna was indeed 'cut out'; in adding an arbitrary black space, the editors could have opted to add the antenna, but decided not to, and thus, cut it out. That is the official description of the altered image. The altered image, while perhaps useful for publicity and perhaps recognizable in its own right, is dishonest for an encyclopedia, as it depicts the Apollo 11 spacesuit in a false way. That is my contention. Indefatigable2 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a source for your "harmonious" conjecture that quotes the technician who created the famous version? People extend sky (space here) in photographs all the time. People rotate photographs all the time. What people don't generally do (because it is dishonest) is paint things in that weren't captured. I guess the photo editor didn't even notice the missing antenna or didn't consider it important (which it isn't). But that's just a guess. Your description of this as "cutting out" the antenna is just bending words. All photographs misrepresent reality.
      • Let's put this into perspective and forget for now pixel peeping issues with the actual JPGs we've got. The first image is a great historic photograph of a man on the moon. A man on the moon for goodness sake! Wow. The second "original" pic is a photographic mistake. You can hear a million people going "Can't you even hold the camera properly for crying out loud?". Only a nerd would like the second photograph. Who gives a **** about a little white wire? Colin°Talk 07:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose D&R. Per above comments. They sent a man to the moon, not an antenna. This is a great picture of a man on the moon. The second picture should only appear in articles that discuss Armstrong's lack of photographic abilities or conspiracy theories concerning the missing antenna. I strongly suggest the original be used in other articles. This is a classic example of missing the big picture. Further, I suggest Wikipedia/Commons continues to pester NASA to release better quality JPGs. -- Colin°Talk 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the antenna issue is a bit silly. You are right, the image is about a man being on the moon. That said, I think we should faithfully reproduce the landscape that was there, which I think is clear is not done in the current FP (just look at the colors of the lunar surface). That said, I would very much welcome a rotated version that reconstructs the missing parts of the spacesuit (antenna or not, don't matter to me) so long as the colors are faithful to the original image. --WingtipvorteX PTT 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wingtipvortex, I see you still support "D&R". Bear in mind the primary purpose of an image in these articles is to be a thumbnail (secondary purpose is a link to a high-resolution copy, and thus to alternate versions even). Which of these two images (at thumbnail size, not the size here) is better for our articles? I'm concerned that FP has this "&R" option for images appearing in a couple of dozen articles. FP has no editorial power, though opinions expressed here are valued. The real decision is always made on the article talk page for each article -- though one might often take a consensus here as enough to be bold and edit directly first. Since this picture is so highly used, perhaps a note on the article talk pages and wikiprojects would be useful? On another point, I would be happy to take the higher-quality TIFF from NASA and add a bit of space above just like the famous one to see if we can reproduce the image but with a better source. What do you think? I wouldn't be happy to draw in bits of spacesuit, however, and I would oppose that especially if done by a wikipedian rather than NASA themselves. -- Colin°Talk 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I think that the NASA original is better for the articles, for the reasons I stated before. I think we have misinterpreted the "&R" of our power. The way I interpret it, our power does not extend to replacing an image in an article. Our power is the ability to remove the FP status of an image(which we gave it) and giving it to another that better meets the FP criteria. How the replacements happen in the articles is not something we should determine here, though each individual editor may do as they so please (either being bold and replacing it, or taking it to articles' talk pages). In fact, it would be nice to have a bot that automatically puts a notice on articles' talk pages when a FP in the article as been replaced by another.
Not sure how I would feel about us doing the modifications. I too would rather have NASA be the one that did that.
To clarify a bit of my opinion, I am opposed to the current FP keeping its FP status, as it is not an accurate representation (colors, not spacesuit or antenna) of what was on the moon, and this its EV is not enough for our standards. If the current FP was used in an article about "NASA publicity versions of images," I could see it having enough EV for that or other articles where appropriate. But as far as accurately representing what Armstrong and Aldrin photographed on the moon, it is my view that the offered 'replacement' in this nom does that much better and thus, in my opinion, is the one that merits FP status. --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current FP, oppose D&R: The version most recognised publicly has the higher EV here, rather than an image which much of the general public has never seen. (Note how the missing antennae has its own EV for conspiracy theories) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current featured picture, oppose D&R. The one that is currently featured is the one that everybody knows. Echoing Colin, however, is it possible to find a better scan of the famous version? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2013 at 01:09:32 (UTC)

 
So called Anagallis monelli
Reason
Questions over EV. The species seems to have been split out in 2009, and we don't have an article on the new species (see reason for renaming on Commons)
Articles this image appears in
Anagallis monelli
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anagallis monelli
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2013 at 09:16:00 (UTC)

 
Robert Baden-Powell, William Taft and James Bryce. On the left, Archibald Butt speaks to an unknown male.
Reason
I nominated this for delisting several years ago, when the community was ambivalent. Even at the original nomination, there were very few supports. I just don't get the image- I don't see any EV. Lot of notable people plus a high resolution does not a FP make- this image is not particularly visually interesting (the composition isn't exactly perfect...) and, more importantly, seems to have no particular EV: the meeting between these men, nor their appearance at whatever gathering this was taken at, receives no mention in any of the articles. (I have notified the nominator.)
Articles this image appears in
Archibald Butt, James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2013 at 02:53:24 (UTC)

 
Arowana
Reason
I do not think the quality, particularly resolution and focus, of this image meets current featured picture standards.
Articles this image appears in
Asian arowana, Barbel (anatomy), Endangered species, among others
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scleropages formosus
Nominator
Fredlyfish4 (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 20:57:43 (UTC)

 
Lithuanian politician Antanas Smetona
Reason
The quality of the photo is visibly poor, the size is too low to attempt a restoration, and there's a weird stamp in the bottom right corner that ought not to be there. Previous delist was over copyright concern, not quality.
Articles this image appears in
Antanas Smetona and eight others
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Antanas Smetona 2.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg
Nominator
Sven Manguard Wha?

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 19:01:26 (UTC)

 
Original
 
New Google Art Version to replace with
 
Alt: Fairly conservative adjustment
Reason
Delist & Replace: Significantly higher quality version sourced through Google Art Project.
Articles this image appears in
MANY
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sadko
Nominator
— raekyt
  • D&R — — raekyt 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R, I could nitpick the Google version but in this case the current FP has a number of flaws--too dark, not completely sharp, and cropped a little bit off the frame. Note that the wooden frame intrudes a little bit at the top of the Google one; this could actually be a perspective problem (if the camera was pointing up slightly--with which I would sympathize, since it's pretty tough to photograph a huge painting like this), or it could be that the wood has warped over time; I haven't seen the painting so I don't know. Chick Bowen 04:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Think we could get away with a tiny bit of colour adjustment to remove the non-intentional varnish yellow? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be one of my nitpicks, yes. I don't think it's a white balance problem but possibly a lighting problem, so I don't know. I'd be interested to see an attempt. I'd still prefer this over the original though, even though neither is perfect. Chick Bowen 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the varnish is yellowing with time that's important EV to be represented since that's how the actual painting currently looks. If it's not been restored then it's important it's preserved. It's also possible the yellowish tent is intentionally colored varnish, as the artist intended. It's not EXTREMELY old for a painting, and I'm no expert here but I donno if varnish that old would darken to any extreme amount in that time. I think it's not our place to decide to alter the colors that the museum chose to reproduce the painting as, these images are from the museum. Info on varnish and restoration I found [2]. — raekyt 06:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a bit suspicious of whatever process the Google Art project is using to scan these images. As far as I can remember, it seems that every Google Art image I've seen here has appeared underexposed and with a yellowish tint, regardless of the age of the artwork. Personally, I wouldn't mind a bit of white-balance color-correction on these images. They just look terrible otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R, preferring Alt Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support the alt. Kaldari (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R prefer alt, per above. Jujutacular (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R, prefer ALT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Ilya_Repin_-_Sadko_-_Google_Art_Project_levels_adjustment_2.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 19:18:30 (UTC)

 
Original FP
 
New Google Art version to replace with.
Reason
Delist & Replace: Significantly higher quality version sourced through Google Art Project.
Articles this image appears in
MANY
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Gothic
Nominator
— raekyt
  • D&R — — raekyt 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google art version is significantly darker and yellower. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also cropped a little tighter at the bottom. Chick Bowen 04:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I donno, I think the tiny loss of a bit of the bottom from a crop is more than made up for by the 2.6x more resolution. My understanding is that the Google Art project is an attempt to fairly faithfully represent these artworks, and it's probably a better representation than the older and what looks to be overly whitebalanced version that the old FP is. The women's collar looks like it's completely blown out. From seeing this panting in person I kinda think the Google Art version is a better representation. Also the version on the museum's website clearly shows the Google Art color scheme (although it MAY be the exact same image..) On the other hand photographs of it on Flickr seem to be more white then the yellowish on the museum's website. My opinion is that the museum's color scheme for it is probably enough authority to trust that they're representing it best they can, and we shouldn't except more. The old FP though is really low quality in comparison to this one, so either it's a replace or straight up delist imho. — raekyt 06:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • FYI, often colours of images of paintings on Flickr will be somewhat distorted because they're using auto WB and it tends to adjust towards blue on yellowish objects. If you compare Flickr photos of the Mona Lisa to the C2RMF version this is very clear (that doesn't stop people from constantly trying to retouch it be less yellow than it really is). In my experience Google's images tend to be more colour-accurate, at least the scans they do themselves, because they seem to have a controlled lighting setup. Dcoetzee 12:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original. Have to say that I prefer the lighting/color in the original (as well as the crop). Not sure which is more accurate though. Kaldari (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R I don't like the WB of the original (too blue). I think the Google version is an accurate reproduction. -- King of 07:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R. Per all above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R per nom. Brandmeistertalk 18:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Jujutacular (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Grant Wood - American Gothic - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 03:21:47 (UTC)

 
Original FP
 
New Google Art version
Reason
Higher quality version available through Google Art Project
Articles this image appears in
Self Portrait with Beret and Turned-Up Collar, Black, National Gallery of Art, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, Rembrandt, Self-portraits by Rembrandt,
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rembrandt - Self portrait
Nominator
JFH (talk)

Replaced with File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2013 at 13:05:20 (UTC)

 
Current FP
 
ReplacementTaxis to Hell – and Back – Into the Jaws of Death, by Robert F. Sargent, CPhoM, USCG
original caption: "American invaders spring from the ramp of a Coast Guard-manned landing barge to wade those last perilous yards to the beach of Normandy. Enemy fire will cut some of them down. Their 'taxi' will pull itself off the sands and dash back to a Coast Guard manned transport for more passengers."
Reason
Current FP is a damaged image, not used anymore, has been replaced by proposed FP replacement. I perfer the enhancements (dodging & burning) of the proposed replacement's print over the very bright current version. Iconic famous photograph, high resolution, well made print. Has an article about this specific picture. Was nominated before (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Into the Jaws of Death) and a lighter damaged print exists (File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg). I think of the two versions (ignoring the damage in the second one) the darker dodging and more selecting burning of this print is more dramatic, and is the widely used of the two now. Image was used on the May 28, 1984 Time Cover. A restored high resolution scan of this version.
Articles in which this image appears
Into the Jaws of Death, 1st Infantry Division (United States), 1944 in the United States, Allies of World War II, Amphibious warfare, History of the United States, Invasion of Normandy, Michael J. Daly, Normandy landings, Omaha Beach, Photojournalism, Robert F. Sargent, Timeline of World War II (1944), USS Samuel Chase (APA-26).
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator
Chief Photographer's Mate (CPHoM) Robert F. Sargent

Replaced with File:Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2013 at 03:43:57 (UTC)

 
Delist: Walt Whitman, American poet
 
Replace: Higher resolution, similar levels (although I think the first is a smidgen to contrasty, so dialed back.
Reason
Quite simply, a much higher resolution copy is available, and I've done a restoration of it. I noticed this image while redoing the People section of Featured pictures, and thought it was great, but, like a lot of 2005 FPCs, a higher-resolution copy has become available. (Aside: Had there not been a higher-resolution file available, I'd never have even suggested a delist. One of the best FPCs of 2005.)
Articles this image appears in
Walt Whitman and many more.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walt Whitman
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Replaced with File:Walt Whitman - George Collins Cox.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2013 at 15:28:06 (UTC)

 
Current FP: Typical odd-eyed cat
 
Proposed replacement: Typical odd-eyed cat
Reason
I think the crop I made is a much better composed version, and there are less distracting elements. The cropped version is already featured in Commons and in Hebrew Wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in
Odd-eyed cat
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Odd-eyed cat
Nominator
Tomer T (talk)

Replaced with File:June odd-eyed-cat cropped.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 18:46:05 (UTC)

 
Delist. No longer used to illustrate Red-crested Pochard
 
Replace as FPC? Currently used in Red-crested Pochard. Much more detailed.
Reason
This image is no longer up to the standards we expect of bird photography in my opinion. It's not of sufficient resolution and is also quite soft. I took a better photo of this bird and replaced it in the article so this image is no longer used. It has already been nominated for delisting twice already in 2006 and 2008. In the first delist, it only just passed and in the second delist, for some reason it never made it to the FPC page. It's time to get rid of it properly this time IMO. I'm suggesting a delist and replace with the second image, but alternatively, I'm happy to just delist without replacing.
Articles this image appears in
None anymore, but previously Red-crested Pochard
Previous nomination/s
Original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard

First delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard delist

Second delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Netta rufina m2.jpg

Nominator
Ðiliff «» (Talk)
  • Delist and replaceÐiliff «» (Talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace Nice find. It seems like a clear cut case of upgrading to a higher quality image. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace new image is obviously much better quality, but I'm undecided about replace it as a FP at the moment. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist -- per Mattximus '''Johncy''' (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace Nikhil (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and do not replace. I find that neither image is is of the technical quality of a featured photo. The suggested replacement is better, but still not up to par. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of curiosity, what aspects of the alt do you find missing, or what technical aspects could be improved? Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder that also as the user supported this nomination which I believe is of significantly lower technical quality, especially considering the relative difficulty of photographing a moving bird vs a stationary building. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • To answer David's question first: I do not believe that this photo took anymore skill than a building for multiple reasons. First, there are no location issues. The reflection in the bird's eye shows that you were standing on a dock/walking path. The location also shows you would have been on this path. The location is also a protected wetland/wildlife center where these birds are not afraid of humans. The bird itself is obviously not moving much, so therefore not much difference in photographing a building and and this animal. As for the technical aspects that I think could be improved, the first I noticed is the angle of the photograph due to the nature of where the photographer could stand. I think a lower angle would be more appropriate as it would do a better job of showing the bird. Obviously this would mean the photographer would have to find a different location. If the photographer (with his skills) take the same photo with an angle closer to File:Netta rufina tom (Marek Szczepanek).jpg I would probably support (the angle of that photo is the only thing I can appreciate). There is also softness around the tail that would be nicer to be more in focus. The most distracting part of the image to me is the white spot above the creature's head. One might think that it is a reflection in the water, but as it is a near perfect circle, that would not make sense with water movement. Rather it looks like something may have been on the lenses or floating in air between the camera and the duck. Hope this helps. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even if the location is 'revisitable', that doesn't mean that it's as easy as taking a photo of a stationary building. It seems that you make superficial claims about the difficulty without a detailed understanding of what it takes to better the photo and what the inherent limitations are. To get down as low as necessary for the 'delist' image would require me to lay on my stomach on the edge of the pond (let's not forget that ducks defecate indiscriminately!). Also, it does appear that the bird is not moving around much but I assure you it is. You can see from the bow waves that it is moving forward. With very limited depth of field and with imperfect focus tracking, it is not easy to get the whole duck in focus as it rarely sits there parallel with the plane of focus and waits for you to get the focus just right. I'm not trying to make excuses for why the image is not perfect. I'm just explaining why it is most certainly not as easy to take a photo of a duck than a building. As for the spot above the duck's head... Really? You're not bothered by an inherent softness across an entire subject, but you're bothered by an out of focus blob? I assure you, it likely is a reflection on the water. It is not there in any other images taken just movements before and after. Specular highlights do in fact look like near perfect circles when not in focus and I'm pretty sure that's what they are. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace Jujutacular (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, weak replace (full support for the delisting, weak support for the promotion): I wonder whether delist and replace noms should be reserved for straightforward improvements on the same image (so, a new restoration, a higher-quality scan, a different crop) separate photographs. I feel like the photograph should be judged on its own merits, rather than in contrast to the other image (which I think we all agree should be delisted). These kinds of nominations always seem to result in some confusion. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we not judging the nominated replacement image on its merits though? A delist and replace nomination is fairly straightforward, except it asks one question then a follow up question: Should this image be delisted, and if so, should the second image replace it as a FP? Seems like most people are considering both questions separately and not assuming that a decision to delist automatically implies a replacement also. I agree that separate nominations would also work just fine, but I don't see how there's evidence of confusion to justify doubling the nominations. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Netta rufina (Red-crested Pochard) Male, London Wetland Centre - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 22:58:46 (UTC)

Plasma ball
Replacement HD video
Reason
low resolution and low quality video. Superseded by HD video.
Articles this image appears in
(previously) Plasma globe
Nominator
Colin°Talk
  • Powershot G9 wasn't exactly current video tech in 2008 (its just that most people weren't prepared to run things through ffmpeg2theora). Mind you a 2010 APS-C SLT isn't exactly current video tech now. Given how available plasma balls are I wouldn't be surprised if we end up updating this one every few years. Heh we've also shifted codecs in that time (theora to webm).©Geni (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Plasma globe 23s.webm --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Delisted

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 20:20:08 (UTC)

 
A racist pro-Hiester Clymer campaign poster for the 1866 governor's election of Pennsylvania.
Reason
Frankly, I was shocked to see this was one of Durova's nominations, and can only presume that the very small size (1.34 megapixels) stymied someone used to much larger scans. Between the horrible condition of the original, and the very poor scan of it, this image, while certainly encyclopedic, is well below our best work.
Articles this image appears in
Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era, Hiester Clymer, John W. Geary, Racism, Sociology of race and ethnic relations
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Racist campaign poster
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 21:59:37 (UTC)

 
A photograph taken in the Castle Ashby graveyard
Reason
Poorly done digital black and white; if it's intended to resemble black and white film it did not succeed. Noisy, tilted. Cliched subject matter. I could go on. . .
Articles this image appears in
Castle Ashby Manor is the only one left; the others listed in the original nomination no longer use it.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CAGrave.jpg
Nominator
Chick Bowen

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 21:17:53 (UTC)

 
An outline of India, without any captions, no cities listed, that allows lazy use in articles of not-particularly-useful maps.
Reason
Locator maps are useful ways to get a temporary map into an article showing its rough location. But they fail to show any other context: For example, they tend not to be geographical maps, so fail to give infornation on major features nearby, and show no other cities, so fail as political maps. As such, the encyclopedic value is low, and the best you can say about them is that they're a fast way to get something for your article.

As such, I don't see them as the best of our work, as our best work involves effort to make the best possible map for use in an article, not making do with a fast, easy option, that provides less than the minimal encyclopedic information that any other map used for discussing a location anywhere but Wikipedia would include.

You may get the feeling I think locator maps are a blight on Wikipedia. That's because they are. It only takes a few times trying to figure out basic things like "What's the nearest large population centre to X" using Wikipedia, and failing because of the ubiquity of bad maps on Wikipedia...

Well, I'll spare you further rants. It's not Wikipedia's best work. It's part of a systemic problem that ranks amongst Wikipedia's worst work.

Articles this image appears in
[N/A]
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/India-locator-map-blank.svg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)
They can be useful as a stopgap, where they stop being useful is when even featured articles use them, without adding other cities. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 18:42:06 (UTC)

 
The fractal shape form of a Romanesco broccoli.
 
Possible replacement 1
 
Possible replacement 2
 
Possible replacement 3
Reason
The image does not meet the size standards, and also, I find it somewhat out of focus, dizzy and weird. Better images can be found.
Articles this image appears in
Brassica oleracea, Broccoflower, Romanesco broccoli,
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/September-2004#Fractal_Broccoli
Nominator
ΛΧΣ21
  • DelistΛΧΣ21 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, don't replace. 1 is OK, but given the amount of space around the vegetable, it's pretty small. 2 has a weird background and part of the subject is out of focus; 3 is almost entirely out of focus. You're quite right about the original. Chick Bowen 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have improved the first possible replacement. I think it is up to standard now. — ΛΧΣ21 01:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't think that was an improvement. I reverted it, primarily because I think, for the sake of courtesy, a change that great should be upload under a separate filename. But also--all you did was crop it and whiten the background, though not uniformly, leaving some odd gray blotches. Chick Bowen 21:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, don't replace - I think that from a technical quality standpoint, possible replacement 1 is the best. It is to me, however, the worst of the four at illustrating the... erm... fractalness of the plant. The angles on the other ones all show it better, IMO. That being said, I think that the backgrounds of replacements 2 and 3 are distracting, and I'm really not a fan of the original. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, don't replace to many options presented, once a good one is located it can be nominated separately, but this image needs to go for sure. — raekyt 00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment I warned about this on the talk page, we can't start delisting retroactively just because the size standards change. Go to the original nomination (linked above) and you'll see nobody even mentioned the size of the image. Unless there is a good reason to delist it or an image that better represents the subject then it should be kept. If you think it should be delisted because it's out of focus then nominate it for that, don't use it as a hedge reason because people might notice that the size criticism doesn't hold up to an examination of the FP criteria. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot speak for everyone else, but my delist vote was not based primarily on the size; it was because the subject is not sharp, and has a strangely abstracted relationship to the black background, which I'm quite sure is artificial. This feeling is pretty well summed up by the nominator's comment that the image is "weird." I strongly agree with you that images shouldn't be delisted solely because of size. Chick Bowen 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My criticism was mainly aimed at the nominator more than the voters but something that the voters should keep in mind. Too many people use size as a reason to oppose a nomination or support delisting but try to backstop it with another issue. In this case the other issue may be pertinent and a good enough reason to delist but if it is then the size shouldn't be an issue. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote has nothing to do with size, but it's just a BAD picture, BAD cutout, and even if it was a huge image I would never vote for it. — raekyt 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace with #1, higher resolution and high EV because of its sterile setting. --LucLewitanski (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe this picture should be delisted due to it not meeting current size requirements. I believe that it was agreed that current FP's would not be affected by the criteria change. Dusty777 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 23:17:29 (UTC)

 
Several children in a Jakarta slum
Reason
This image was promoted in 2005 largely because of its' "message", however the quality of the image itself seems poor to me. Both the framing and the lighting seem bothersomely off, and the EV is decent, but there are enough similar images that it can't be carried by EV alone.
Articles this image appears in
Child poverty
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jakarta slumlife65.JPG
Nominator
Sven Manguard Wha?

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2013 at 08:50:40 (UTC)

 
Three cell growth types
Reason
Image does not satisfy the current FP criteria. It is small (as a diagram this should probably be SVG). While it has encyclopaedic value in giving a rough comparison of the types of cell division, this is limited because the diagram itself doesn't clearly illustrate any of the steps nor lend itself to proper captioning. The description within the diagram is also technically incorrect as cytokinesis and fertilisation are also included in mitosis and meiosis.
Articles this image appears in
Cell division, Cell growth
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004#Three cell growth types
Nominator
Paul_012 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2013 at 18:36:39 (UTC)

 
A Light-blue Soldier Crab, Mictyris longicarpus.
Reason
Apart from the size requirement (that can be overlooked), my main concern is the blurriness of the image. In my opinion, I find it to be a bit unrealistic and shady, and the floor looks weird. For me, it does not meet our standards anymore. I'll try to find a better candidate and bring it to FPC in a future.
Articles this image appears in
Mictyris longicarpus
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Light-blue_Soldier_Crab Promoted in 2006.
Nominator
ΛΧΣ21

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 23:56:49 (UTC)

 
1st: Markham tract housing: so similar it needs two FPs; which to keep?
 
2nd: Markham tract housing: so similar it needs two FPs; which to keep?
Reason
We need to delist one, otherwise this will get Meta very fast. Both of these are current featured pictures.
Articles this image appears in
Markham, Ontario, Tract housing, etc.
Previous nomination/s
1st: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Suburbs; 2nd: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Markham tract housing
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
You're only 11 minutes late, so considering how obvious of a case this is, I hope your vote counts. If for some reason the first image isn't delisted, it will just be renominated and be a waste of time for everyone. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was only 11 minutes--I just saw the red lettering. I wouldn't have even made anything of it if I'd known. Chick Bowen 01:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 June 2013 at 06:03:46 (UTC)

 
Current Featured PictureBarack Obama delivering a speech at the University of Southern California in support of California Proposition 87
 
Replacement – White House portrait of President Barack Obama
Reason
Delist and replace the current featured picture of Barack Obama with his White House portrait.
Articles in which this image appears
Barack Obama, Economic policy of Barack Obama
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/President Barack Obama (2006 portrait)
Nominator
--Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Delist & Replace as nominator. The current FP of Barack Obama only currently appears in 1 article and is of marginal EV. The replacement portrait is a much better portrait in almost every way. It has much higher EV and appears in multiple articles. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no opinion on the replace. It's clear that the old image needs to be delisted- there's no particular EV for this image concerning Obama's energy policy, even if he happens to be making a speech on energy policy. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist but aren't delists supposed to go in the delist section below? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should just start a new precedent, right now, in which delists are listed in with the other nominations. They might get more attention that way, and it's not like there are so many of them as to make the main list ungainly. On this image, weak delist (but closer may count me as delist if this ends as 4.5 delists and no keeps) per various previous nominations, don't replace, the new official portrait is pretty mediocre in my view: busy, flat, toothy, and weirdly composed, just short of traditional half-portrait length and with his head crammed up against the top of the frame. Chick Bowen 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace. The old image is just plain bad. Replacement is good. --WingtipvorteX PTT 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the image is here, I was just wondering, how can the official version be public domain and yet have the following requirement? --Muhammad(talk) 05:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

That's pure BS; if it is public domain, you can't put a restriction on it. That said, the PD release should serve as "permission of the White House Photo Office." --WingtipvorteX PTT 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's like when you see those dump trucks that say "Not responsible for broken windshields". It's complete BS. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, don't replace. Current FP is clearly subpar. I would like the new image to go through the regular voting process and get scrutinized in its own for quality and license, without confusion of wanting to replace a lesser image.TCO (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2013 at 00:31:42 (UTC)

 
"An excellent picture of beautifully-decorated sake barrels."
Reason
Promoted to FP in 2004 because everyone agreed with the nominator's statement, which I'm using as the caption. I don't disagree that it's good in appearance, but it definitely fails our current standards because of its size: FPs need to be "a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height", but this image is 1024x768.
Articles this image appears in
Itsukushima Shrine; it was taken there. List of Japanese dishes; it illustrates a type of Japanese beverage. 100 Landscapes of Japan (Heisei era); it illustrates one of the landscapes. Note that this isn't a fair representation of what uses this image — it was recently deleted on copyright grounds before being restored, so presumably it got removed from other pages that were using it. This delist nomination is completely unrelated to the copyright issues (make it related if you think it should be, but my motive for bringing it up is purely because of its small size), which you can find discussed in the "Missing image" section of the current revision of WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sake barrels
Nominator
Nyttend (talk)
Fastily has confirmed that this is the full-size image, so I guess I reluctantly have to say delist. — Scott talk 10:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Because this is not a place I've ever been before - is it usual to delist images that were selected under older standards when the standards change to become more stringent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as this is still somewhat reproducible. If this were not I wouldn't mind the size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Delisting on size has been controversial in the past (on the theory that we should give some precedence to the criteria at the time of nomination), but this has some chromatic aberration, and it's not well used (galleries, basically). Chick Bowen 17:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I don't care about the size (it really doesn't impact usage in article of the encyclopedia.) It's way confusing though. Thought I was staring at some round Gateway boxes or something. The angle seems off also. Having a bunch of barrels instead of one.TCO (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2013 at 13:25:32 (UTC)

 
A queen conch shell, the lip of which has been cut or filed to make the shell look more attractive to the tourist trade
Reason
This shell is not entirely in its natural state; the cut or filed lip is an artificial modification that is commonly carried out before the shell is sold, and is meant to make the shell look more attractive. The two thumbnails I have included here show how the lip should really look in an intact shell (much more extended and frilly). The lip is thin at the edge and usually gets chipped a lot while it is being collected and shipped, hence the trimming.
 
 
Articles this image appears in
Lobatus gigas
Previous nomination/s
gigas 01.jpg Original nomination,

A delist mention

Nominator
Invertzoo (talk)
Yes as far as my knowledge extends, all the rest of the shells in Zell's FPs are fine. However, there is a problem with File:Pulmonata.jpg which is not a Zell image. The illustration in that file is quite pretty to look at, but the portrayal of the snails and slugs in it is scientifically quite inaccurate! I suppose I'd better file a delist nomination for that one too. Invertzoo (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 17:30:57 (UTC)

 
Porphyrio porphyrio, or purple swamphen, in Victoria, Australia
Reason
Superseded by File:Purple Swamp Hen Wollongong.jpg, now featured. Little-used. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple Swamphen for more discussion.
Articles this image appears in
Way down the page in Arrocampo Reservoir
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg (kept, but the new FP did not yet exist)
Nominator
Chick Bowen

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 13:15:41 (UTC)

 
An artistic (but not scientific) illustration from 1893 of European land snails and slugs, also showing some food plants and fungi, eggs, and a beetle predator
Reason
It has very little scientific value at all. The artist drew the snails and slugs so "loosely" that they are not well portrayed, and one of the species is not a pulmonate anyway. The main problem is that the images do not very closely resemble the actual snails and slugs that are supposed to be being depicted, and because of that this image is quite misleading scientifically, although in other respects it is arguably cute and charming.
Articles this image appears in
Pulmonata
Previous nomination/s
Has quite a bit of history (see file usage). Got promoted here picture candidates/File:Pulmonata.jpg Was nominated once before for delisting [3]
Nominator
Invertzoo (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2013 at 04:36:58 (UTC)

 
Mushroom, identified as Tremella mesenterica, which we're not sure of
Reason
Possibly misindentified, and as such no longer used. See also User_talk:Sasata#File:Tremella_mesenterica.jpg
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tremella mesenterica.jpg
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 23:09:12 (UTC)

 
Confederate General Robert E. Lee
Reason
Compared even with other Civil War era photographs, this image appears to have a number of issues both in terms of brightness and in focus. There are several other images of Lee around, and I have to think that if a restorer of Adam Cuerden's caliber were to work on one, we'd be able to turn this from a delist to a delist and replace
Articles this image appears in
Robert E. Lee, Military of the Confederate States of America, List of United States Military Academy alumni, and Confederate States of America
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Robert_E._Lee
Nominator
Sven Manguard Wha?
  • This image isn't just a little bit off, it's bad. It was either bad when it was taken, bad when it was developed, or did not age well before being digitized, but the issues are too severe for the "but this is really old" clause. There are plenty of civil-war era images that are fundamentally sound, to which that clause can be considered. This isn't one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 23:18:09 (UTC)

 
Union general William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Did this one actually have the votes the first time?
Reason
Compared with other portraits of Union officers, this has an inexcusable amount of shadow on the right side. The article on the general has opted for a different version of this image, File:William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg, which has a significant reduction of that shadow, and that image has displaced this version in all but one article.
Articles this image appears in
Chattanooga Campaign
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Tecumseh Sherman
Nominator
Sven Manguard Wha?

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2013 at 15:26:26 (UTC)

 
Delist as another identical object was promoted to FP as part of a set.
Reason
This file was recently promoted as part of a complete set of Fractional currency. The object is in better condition and the file is higher quality than the delist candidate to the right.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg
Nominator
Godot13 (talk)
SWTPC6800 is correct. While these are they same type of note, they do represent two slightly different varieties.-Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a type Fr#: 1230, Godot13's image is a type Fr#: 1231. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Other

edit