Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2015

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 2 Jan 2015 at 01:19:11 (UTC)

Images of the human skeleton
Images of the human skeleton
Images of the human skeleton
Reason
These images were nominated in 2007 and I don't think they really represent our best material. I thank the nominator for putting the effort into creating them, but I do not think their quality warrants this tag. The images have an odd choice of font and coloured bars, have words that are oddly capitalised, do not use standard anatomical terms and do not use adjective consistently ("Humeral..." vs. "Radius head"). In addition these featured images should be in anatomical position which is an international standard for anatomical images. Lastly, the colour choice is odd, the lines sometimes intersect with text, and the body is oddly proportioned.
Articles this image appears in
File:Human skeleton back en.svg: List of bones of the human skeleton & Outline of human anatomy
File:Human skeleton front en.svg: Human musculoskeletal system, Human skeleton, List of bones of the human skeleton, Outline of human anatomy
File:Human arm bones diagram.svg: Acromion, Arm, Capitulum of the humerus, Clavicle, Coracoid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Greater tubercle, Humerus, Lesser tubercle, Radial fossa, Radial styloid process, Radius (bone), Ulna, Ulnar styloid process
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skeleton back.svg (1st and 3rd image), Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg (2nd)
Nominator
Tom (LT) (talk)
Just for interest, I measured myself. I am 180 cm tall, and my arms, held in the position of the skeleton's, measured from the top of the clavicle to the tip of the middle finger, are 84 cm. This is a ratio of about 0.47, which is the same as that of the skeleton, to my accuracy of measurement. I feel that I have fairly normal body proportions. 217.44.130.43 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your ratio is fairly close to the norm depending on your shoulder width. A nice anatomical quirk is that your arm span when arms extended finger tip to finger tip should be roughly your height. It's hard for me to figure out what doesn't look quite right with this skeleton, perhaps the shoulders are too wide compared to the rest of the body? The proportions are definatley off regardless, especially with the thickness of several bones. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LadyofHats has produced some of our best freely licensed, de novo biomedical illustrations; I am confident that this is some of our best work, and that calling for its delisting is not productive. She's modified illustrations after consultation in the past, so this should be the first step. We don't have all that many professional illustrators contributing scientific illustrations to Wikipedia, so delist nominations such as this one should be well thought out. Lastly, as the IP contributor has suggested, the body proportions are likely within the range observed in healthy adults. Once we start to argue about averages, we run into the problem, "average of what?", and I don't think we want to go there. It may, however, help your understanding to note that this depicts a female, as stated in the file description. Samsara 17:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely something odd about this image, have a look on google and you will see that there is certainly some odd proportioning. For example, in this image, the femur is just as thick as the tibia. The cervical vertebrae are very thick. The triangle below the clavicle is very big. The rib cage expands sidewards strangely and does have the normal curvature. The lack of anatomical position means this image is in a naturally varus position. Although I admit I haven't seen many real human skeletons (most are models or drawings), this image doesn't reconcile with the corpus of images I see when researching in order to edit anatomy articles, and with these inconsistencies (whilst minor) I do not think this could be called our "featured" work, and I would not want readers seeing this image and feeling that it is other images which are inconsistent. I agree that addressing the issue a good place to start, Samsara, however I don't think the images as they stand represent best quality. LadyOfHats has made numerous, high quality images some of which I've personally used, and I'm very grateful. These are from 2007 and I hope she doesn't mind if they are delisted while the changes are made. How might we get in touch with Lady of Hats? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a concern about the proportions, the first thing to do would be to leave her messages through appropriate channels (there are at least three available) to ask what reference she used, and make an actual constructive suggestion, which I note this nomination doesn't do other than apparently saying that both sides of the body must be in anatomical position, which frankly I'm not sure I agree with. I think most viewers are aware that bodies are generally symmetrical, to an approximation. Delisting and renomming is, comparatively speaking, a waste of resources when a simple fix might be available, and tbh, changing the font is absolutely something you should be able to do yourself if there is an appropriate guideline that mandates certain choices. Just open the SVG in Inkscape and be done with it. It's a clear case of being bold and doesn't require a whole nomination process as a preamble. Samsara 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, WP has a process for delisting Featured Images. This image is not suitable as a "featured image". Hence I am using this process to get it delisted. Part of being on this site is expecting uploaded words to undergo scrutiny afrom others, which this picture is receiving. I am certainly not going to invest hours of my time learning these image editing and what note. I have "been bold" and cut straight to the point. As noted above and below it's clear other users share my concerns.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two do and two don't, at current count. I see that there are things that can be improved, but I still feel a delist nomination for something so salvageable is rather a waste of our resources. And I don't think changing a font in Inkscape would have taken you as long as typing out the above words. YMMV. Samsara 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are some issues I see with the anterior view image:
    • Cervical vertibrae are too wide.
    • Distal third of the clavicle is too thick.
    • Spacing of the shoulder joints is too wide. (Humeral head seems inferiorly subluxated.)
    • Left thumb is impossibly over-abducted.
    • Knees are in an abnormally vulgus position.
    • Patella seems inferiorly subluxated.
    • Tibia is too thick.
    • Ankles are generally poorly represented.
I can't exactly pinpoint what it is that's wrong with the proportions, but the bones do seem unnaturally thick and the skeleton wide. I quite agree that the non-anatomical positioning makes the diagram seem rather unprofessional. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, support delisting as-is. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015 at 18:26:53 (UTC)

Reason
Poor colour balance; red in shadows, green in highlights, low resolution. Restored version has better colour balance and higher resolution.
Articles this image appears in
Adolescence Vietnam War 3rd Marine Division (United States) FNG syndrome (some currently have the unrestored NARA version)
Previous nomination/s

Nominator
(Hohum @)
  • Delist & Replace — (Hohum @) 18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not an expert in photo images, but the second image is so dark that it is hard to see any details. Regarding the "green highlights" in the first picture, are there highlights in the face, neck, shirt and hands that are so green that they look unnatural? I don't think so. Everything has green in it maybe because the things really were green. Based on my unexpert eye, I prefer the first image. CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck out my resolution comment, for some reason I was looking at the original upload size in the FPs history. (Hohum @) 01:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open the images in two browser windows at full resolution, flip between them and tell me you think the current FP is sharper, has more detail, and the skin tone is correct. I can't see it. (Hohum @) 01:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current FP's been Denoised. The film grain's been removed, and probably some sharpening applied, this makes some bits look better, but at the cost of damage to other bits. For example, the hands are a lot better looking on the replacement. Also, brightness makes things sharper - it's like when my father takes photos on gloomy days, then changes them all until they look "bright and sunny" - it might look good, but whether it's a fair representation, that's another question. On the whole, I think the replacement's better, so Delist and replace, although I may fiddle and do an alt.Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 16:20:35 (UTC)

2008 United States Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigning in Pittsburgh on Labor day in 2007, accepting the endorsement of the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers of America.
Reason
This image is just not up to the current FP standards. Marginal EV, the lighting is poor, he is squinting, his mouth is open, the microphone obscures part of his face, he is in an awkward pose, and I find the blurry American Flag in the background to be distracating.
Articles this image appears in
John Edwards, Political campaign
Previous nomination/s
Original nomination page
Nominator
Rreagan007 (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Pseudomallada edwardsi AF 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2015 at 11:36:21 (UTC)

"Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" - Colors are washed out and the file is of lower resolution (2,916 × 2,259 px).
"Panini, Modern Rome.jpg" - Colors are correct and the file is of significantly higher resolution (3,701 × 2,868 px).
Reason
Inferior to File:Panini, Modern Rome.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Arts in Rome, Giovanni Paolo Panini, Modern Rome, Pendant painting
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Two picture galleries with views of Rome
Nominator
Craigboy (talk)
  • DelistCraigboy (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Digital manipulation of paintings scanned by museums is irresponsible and should not be promoted. Considering you've already nominated both images for deletion on commons, I'm having trouble AGF-ing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me it is obvious that the original scan did not capture the painting's true colors, this is very common with scanners. Compare it with the vibrant colors seen in this photograph. "Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" was nominated for deletion because it is essentially a lower resolution duplicate on an image that was already on wikicommons. Even if you were to pretend its not a duplicate then this image is still obviously inferior (lower resolution, inaccurate colors) and does not deserve to be featured. Also WP:AOBF.--Craigboy (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an exact duplicate; you need to check your understanding of Commons policy. The mere fact that you are nominating this image for delisting means that it and the other image you are nominating are different. And what reference do you have that the colors are inaccurate? Paintings fade after 250 years. They get dirty. When it comes to accuracy, I trust people with immediate access to the painting over armchair experts with photo editing software. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given recent edits today, I'm also struggling to AGF on this too, – SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you mean one with more definitive sourcing and more accurate colours? Say, what makes someone with a long-term focus on the docking of spacecraft begin to exhibit an interest in 18th-century art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panini isn't known for using muted colors. Almost all pictures taken of the painting show much more vibrant colors than what is shown in the currently featured image. It is reasonable to assume the colors are not accurate.--Craigboy (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paintings fade, and too many people - yourself included, it appears - are not averse to editing proper scans to provide what they think the painting should look like. Also, don't forget that a lot of digital cameras automatically adjust colors when photographs are taken; that also affects how an image is rendered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh... I disagree Josh Milburn. I appreciate all that Crisco contributes to FP, but this is some embarrassing conduct to come from an admin. Although I side with keeping the original photo based on the museum scan rule, there are several snide remarks made throughout this topic. Case in point:

    *Oh, you mean one with more definitive sourcing and more accurate colours? Say, what makes someone with a long-term focus on the docking of spacecraft begin to exhibit an interest in 18th-century art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)"

    How encouraging is it to hear something like that when you're trying to contribute? chsh (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chsh, I doubt that you are aware of the background behind that question. I'd recommend having a look at FPC-related discussions from around September and October of last year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Craig, if I was closing this, I wouldn't be !voting "speedy close". I'd have closed this. The "Speedy Close" is a recommendation to other editors, which may be heeded, or may be ignored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept ---The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 15:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2015 at 18:22:11 (UTC)

A Swiss Braunvieh cow wearing a cowbell
Cropped version, 4:3 aspect ratio
Reason
Picture is mostly of pretty clouds in the alps. We should use the cropped version, as it is a better illustration for the cattle and livestock articles.
Articles this image appears in
cattle, livestock, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/cow
Nominator
Kaldari (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 23:57:27 (UTC)

Current featured version; not in use
Replacement - Original version. Used widely.
Reason
Our featured GIF has been universally replaced with File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami Complete.gif, but has not been D&Red yet. I'm D&R-ing it now.
Articles this image appears in
None. Edit is used in numerous articles, including 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 01:03:07 (UTC)

Glaucus atlanticus
Reason
Only in use in the countershading article. Replaced in the species article by File:Blue dragon-glaucus atlanticus (8599051974).jpg
Articles this image appears in
Countershading
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Glaucus atlanticus 1.jpg
Nominator
 — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Keep The original is still in the countershading article, but now that I look more closely, I like the original a bit better because it's sharper, so I'm changing to full keep. If this fails, I'll replace the newer image in the article with the old, clearer version and move the other one to somewhere other than lede. --Pine 03:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 16:15:39 (UTC)

A panorama shot from the water tower in Hanko, Finland
Reason
Didn't achieve the basic Doesn't achieve the current criteria of "minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height", the sun reflecting off the water also a serious problem.
Articles this image appears in
Hanko
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hankopan.jpg
Nominator
Exploringlife (talk)
  • DelistExploringlife) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, a little "retaliation" for my comments about the Hong Kong photo?? Or how else did you find this? ;-) BTW, the size criteria were different when this photo was awarded FP status in 2006... --Janke | Talk 17:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure not a revenge, actually I've seen a delisted one recently in FPC, which also due to pixel problem, so I'm afraid of your featured picture will also be eliminate, even the delist not nominate by me, but someone must nominate in the future. I want to save your photo, but not destroy your contribution. You push me to make progress, I push you to make progress, everyone are pushing each other to make progress for a better life/living. Finland is your homeland, you must easily to retake this photo again and get a better effect than previous one. In fact, I won't mind the results even fail or elect of my photos, if my portfolios paid with sweat and physical strength are totally worthless due to resolution problem, then l'll accept without excuse and buy a better camera to replace with, also consider to withdraw from this election. Exploringlife) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We historically haven't delisted on resolution alone. Not sure the technical issues are enough to merit delisting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delisting on resolution alone sets a bad precedent. This was a point of discussion in the past, and the general consensus was that pictures which have achieved FP status can't lose that status due to it not meeting the current criteria. I must say I strongly agree. Picture still contributes a fair amount of value to the article, it's a good quality picture overall. Must oppose delisting. Dusty777 01:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dusty. Samsara 02:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we get a better shot we can replace it, but we don't have one yet. Belle (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 05:29:53 (UTC)

To delist Panorama of Pittsburgh from Mount Washington.
Proposed replacement

.

Alternative Even higher resolution, much sharper, less noisy, daytime photo with more EV. A little bit saturated sky on the right
Reason
Proposed replacement is more recent (2015 vs 2007) and contains a new skyscraper (the Tower at PNC Plaza which just opened a few days ago); higher resolution (3840px tall vs 1200px); more dynamic range; better exposure (no significant overexposure in the sky).
Articles this image appears in
Pittsburgh, Mount Washington (Pittsburgh)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pittsburgh at dawn
Nominator
dllu (t,c)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 22:04:54 (UTC)

Cross-sectional representation of the brain
Reason
Tiny! Only 231x231 pixels. Does not meet our size requirements.
Articles this image appears in
Human brain, Hypofrontality, Hypostatic model of personality, Mind uploading, Neuroimaging, Sympathy, Transcortical sensory aphasia
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2004#fMRI scan
Nominator
Tom (LT) (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 22:17:29 (UTC)

Bones of the human arms with some anatomical features labelled
Reason
(1) very poor labelleing in English language (2) concerns about technical accuracy.
A "good" image but with some failings that mean it should not be a "featured" image here:
Style
  • Labelling of structures inconsistent adjective/noun use ("Humeral x" vs "Radius x")
  • Labelling of structures inconsistent - capital/lowercase
Technical
  • Articular surfaces of bone shown in the same colour as cartilage
  • Abnormal shape of rib cage
  • Abnormally abducted left thumb
  • Flexor digitorum sublimis is a muscle, not a bone
  • No such structure as "supinator"
  • Bony fossa shouldn't be labelled
Articles this image appears in
Arm, Humerus, Ulna, Clavicle, Lesser tubercle, Greater tubercle, Radial styloid process, Ulnar styloid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Radial fossa
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton
Nominator
Tom (LT) (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 13:20:21 (UTC)

Reason
The recent diptych reminded me of this one, nominated before I had my current understanding of PD-Art. The frame is a 3D object, and thus this is a copyvio (PD-Art doesn't apply).
Articles this image appears in
Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, +2
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Well, he is a rather good editor who made a tremendous good job on this article and a shitloads of other good and wonderful art articles too - and among them like 40 Featured art articles - so, at least we can involve him in the discussion, no need to raise your voice like this. Sincerely doubt that article would be anything worth telling about without his and Victorias tremendous and high quality work. Wish there were many more editors like him who were so productive and knowledgeable in art like him. Prefer him way much more than all socks I have to show agf for all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to problems with other users. Sometimes the problem is that they look back at a discussion like this one, and they see a precedent being set for FPC not taking priority. In fact, however, FPC has always taken priority over article editors unless there were very, very, very, very, very good reasons for not using the FP version of an image. The rule is discussion happens here, not elsewhere. Anyone can participate, and inviting him to comment via his personal talk page would be fine (we have had canvassing discussions in the past, and it's usually a good idea to steer clear of such distractions). Now, to go back to my original comment, since the motivation of this nom was copyvio, we're talking about an issue that doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation. Either we fix it, or the image goes. I don't see a third alternative. Samsara 13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) And as for no article ownership, it's policy. Nuff said.[reply]
Voilá. Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Commons is satisfied, then no objection from me. Samsara 05:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armbrust, my caffeine levels don't seem to be high enough yet as, like Haffy, I'm scratching my dizzy blonde head with a confused look on my face. Can I just say count my vote/comments to be whatever is needed to meet (procedural?) requirements? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) except I'm mainly brunette but I'll count the blonde highlights! Reaches for coffee mug ...[reply]

Replaced with File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587, left panel.jpg and File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587, right panel.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 16:31:53 (UTC)

Florence Nightingale's hospital at Scutari, one of the first modern hospitals
Proposed substitute, restored by me from a newly-available better scan.
Reason
Jake Wartenberg did a good job with the source image he had. Unfortunately, it's not a very good source image. While part of the difference is that the Simpson images exist in at least two states - one with additional colours on lithographic plates - but the important difference is that the LoC produced one of its worst scans for their copy of the image. The Wellcome scan is much, much better. I've cropped it a bit because part of the caption was heavily smudged - but I could grab the text from a third state of the lithograph, File:Crimean War; Florence Nightingale at Scutari Hospital. Colou Wellcome V0015447.jpg (note that the colour of the caps changes from red to blue!) as the text doesn't change between states.
Articles this image appears in
Florence Nightingale, Selimiye Barracks, Hospital, John Forrest (doctor), History of hospitals (all updated to suggested replacement, as I don't see this being controversial.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hospital at Scutari
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Replaced with File:'One of the wards in the hospital at Scutari'. Wellcome M0007724 - restoration, cropped.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2015 at 23:37:47 (UTC)

The Indus river near Leh - alternate, current FP
The Indus river near Leh - new version, see 100%
Reason
New version uploaded for the original
Articles this image appears in
Indus River
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indus River
Nominator
KennyOMG (talk)
  • Delist and ReplaceKennyOMG (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see what's wrong with this image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have replaced the original with one that has better resolution, color balance, tones, I think the geometric distortion is a bit better handled, and while I appreciate Bammesk's work his edit made the Alt worse than the original in quite a few respects (like noise and, ironically, unbalanced tones). KennyOMG (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a purely procedural point, you should have both here so that we can easily compare them (since you're proposing a replacement, not having the replacement here is a problem). Second, the horizon in the current FP appears straighter, and the contrast is a bit better. Yes, admittedly there are points where the whites are blown out, but there should be a midpoint between blown highlights and little contrast. The extra resolution is really useful, and if the two issues I pointed out were addressed, I'd be fine with a D&R. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can I link the other version here? :) Also the horizon is straight in the new one, not the old one (it's tricky picture and you only _feel_ that way because you're comparing two and the base of the hills tilt less in the old one). KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nevermind got it. Also I think it's not the best to make decisions based on 2x 250px wide images (or even 1920 wide, for that matter!) since the first thing lost during downsampling are the highlights, so every dark area will look darker. Take a look at the mountains on the right at 100% and tell me which one looks better. Take a look at the lower-right "gravel" and tell me which one is lighter. Take a look at the whole image and tell me which one looks more natrural.
  • Delist and Replace — Now I agree that the new version is better. Yann (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R - Reconsidering it, the extra pixels give this new version an edge. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace - New upload has higher quality. Bammesk (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R as we need better images. Think of future. 1500X1500 will stand for a year or two when we will need higher requirements. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Indus Valley near Leh.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 06:17:20 (UTC)

Delist The ceremony for the driving of the golden spike at Promontory Summit, Utah on May 10, 1869; completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad. At center left, Samuel S. Montague, Central Pacific Railroad, shakes hands with Grenville M. Dodge, Union Pacific Railroad (center right).
High-res image. 4500+ px wide, restored.
Reason
Higher resolution version is available now, although its still below the 1500px mandate I am asking for a degree of consideration here, as this was a momentous historical moment for the U.S. which marked the completion of what had been up till that time the largest engineering project ever undertaken.
Articles this image appears in
There's like 40 articles that use one of these two images on the English Wikipedia alone, take a look at the images themselves to see where its used.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GoldenSpikev3.jpg
Nominator
TomStar81 (Talk)

Replaced with File:East and West Shaking hands at the laying of last rail Union Pacific Railroad - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 12:45:31 (UTC)

Current FP – A page from the Studies of the Fetus in the Womb by Leonardo da Vinci made in 1510–1512/13. The study correctly depicts the human fetus in its proper position inside the uterus. Da Vinci also correctly draw the uterine artery and the vascular system of the cervix and vagina.
Proposed replacement
Reason
The current FP is below minimum resolution.
Articles this image appears in
Study (art), Embryology, Leonardo da Vinci
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Studies of Embryos
Nominator
Brandmeistertalk

Replaced with File:Leonardo da Vinci - Studies of the foetus in the womb.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 00:28:49 (UTC)

Reason
Both these FPs have Google Art Project versions, which are much higher quality. I think we need to replace them.
Articles this image appears in
The first (Dante and Virgil in Hell) has been fully replaced with the Google Art Project version.
The second is used in Central Black Earth Region, Eurasian Economic Union, List of Russian artists, and Russia, but probably should be replaced
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rye
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Replaced with File:William Bouguereau - Dante and Virgile - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:Ivan Shishkin - Рожь - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2015 at 15:41:28 (UTC)

Original Morphology and Locomotive system of Equus ferus caballus (a common horse).
Proposed replacement
Reason
SVG version available
Articles this image appears in
Horse, Ungulate, Skeletal system of the horse, Limbs of the horse
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horseanatomy.png
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Horseanatomy.png
Nominator
The_Photographer (talk)
I agree with Armbrust. --Tremonist (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let me know if it's done --The_Photographer (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Horse anatomy.svg --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 20:27:03 (UTC)

Delist
Reason
The proposed replacement for the existing images of the 1933 $20 double eagle is higher resolution and, at full size, much sharper and detailed. On the obverse of this Saint-Gaudens double eagle, at Liberty's feet, is a black fiber that would not willingly be separated from the coin. I hope the increased detail mitigates this one flaw. Given that the proposed delist is actually two images, the layout is a bit awkward.
Articles this (replace) image appears in
1933 double eagle, Double eagle, Saint-Gaudens double eagle
Links to the EN:WP article(s) that use the image proposed for delisting: none
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1933 Double Eagle
Nominator
Godot13 (talk)

Replaced  with File:NNC-US-1933-G$20-Saint Gaudens.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2015 at 02:25:35 (UTC)

To Delist Skyline of Pittsburgh in 2007
Proposed replacement
Reason
Proposed replacement is more recent (2015 vs 2007) and contains a new skyscraper (the Tower at PNC Plaza which just opened a month ago); higher resolution (3500px tall vs 1200px); more dynamic range.
Articles this image appears in
Pittsburgh, Mount Washington (Pittsburgh)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pittsburgh at dawn, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Pittsburgh Panorama
Nominator
dllu (t,c)

Replaced  with File:Pittsburgh skyline panorama at night.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 January 2015 at 00:01 UTC

Before and after view of the village of Passchendaele during World War I
Reason
While certainly striking at thumbnail resolution, this image completely lacks quality. 500 × 674 px resolution, and blurry even then, incredibly overprocessed - compare [1] - and quite simply, not amongst Wikipedia's best images. It's time to delist it.
Articles this image appears in
Battle of Passchendaele, Second Battle of Passchendaele, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Village_of_Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Village of Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele aerial view.jpg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the technical issues, I still find this high enough in EV, not to mention impossible to replace (unless I am proven otherwise), to keep sorry. You can still see the stark contrast between the two images demostrating the utter devistation to the village from the war. The fact that this town still exists to this day is incredible. gazhiley 11:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could replace it with the original from the IWM, we could replace it with another thing - but there is no inherent right for a bad image to be an FP just because it illustrates something interesting. Keeping this is saying that we will settle, that a really crap image does not deserve any attempt to find better - it's good enough. That's severely wrong and counterproductive, in my opinion. People, seeing a featured picture, stop looking for better. That's a major problem, and it's why we need to be a little ruthless about FPs from 2004, that wouldn't have any chance whatsoever at FPC in the last seven years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, but until someone provides a better version I still stick to my opinion. I for one found this very interesting, and read the articles it is connected to, which is essence is what the FP process is about... And, as a side point, please don't use a red font to try and emphasise your opinion - I for one respect anyone's viewpoint, irrespective of colour of the font... It's unneccessary to use it... struck as red font now changed to black. gazhiley 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Yeah, size isn't everything, but we've got two images in a file that doesn't even approach our minimum/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Agree with the high EV, however the picture quality is very, very low. Those photographs were taken with higher resolution, even if they have been destroyed, I would suspect a better scan is available out there. Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 17:19:55 (UTC)

Hydrogen in a vial, glowing
Reason
Unused, again. There appears to be no consensus to keep this image in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases; Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Hydrogen
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 17:21:28 (UTC)

Nitrogen in a vial, glowing
Reason
Unused. There appears to be no consensus to keep this image in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 06:35:31 (UTC)

A four stroke engine diagram
Reason
Replaced universally with File:4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D Small.gif, as that one actually moves.
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Picture peer review/4 Stroke Engine
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Four Stroke Engine
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 02:09:40 (UTC)

The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster, London - often mistakenly called Big Ben
Replacement image of the tower
Reason
Unused. Replaced by File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - May 2007.jpg, by the same photographer.
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg
Nominator
 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

Delisted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unused" is a sufficient reason in itself for delist. Doesn't seem to be a quorum to promote the new one; can nominate it for FP seperately; however, an unused image cannot be an FP, that's a strict criterion that no vote can overturn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute. I admit I lost track of this nomination so I didn't do what I was planning to do.. But as per the votes, we didn't vote to delist. We voted to delist and replace - only a single vote was for delist only. The equivalent ('replacement' image) is used in many articles and it would have been trivial to replace it in the article with the original - in many ways, as per the discussion, it is a superior image. I think you've jumped the gun here, although I concede that a lot of time passed without any action. I think it would have been more prudent though, to have had a quick quorum about what to do with it before going for a straight delist, given the discussion above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: I agree this is a tough decision, but you must agree that if the image isn't used, it cannot, as in, there is a blanket ban on it being a featured image. I'd prefer to do this as D&R, but it's a vote short of "R", and I don't think we should push a promotion through without cause. This was open for over a month. There was plenty of time for the original to be added to articles; that it was not rather precludes it remaining an FP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you know how sometimes discussions and nominations stall and people forget about them when they no longer show up on watchlists. That doesn't mean we just close them and move on, we prod people and try to find a solution that best suits the situation. This was a bureaucratic close but not a sensible one IMO. If it was genuinely not being used because it was replaced by something better, fine. But the image in use is arguably not better, and I doubt there would be any arguments in swapping it in at least one of the major articles. Yes, it didn't happen in time, but that's just because I forgot, not because it couldn't be done. Hence a prod would have been the better action. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to reverse if:
  1. The image is used in at least a few relevant articles
  2. It stays there for at least one week.
Until it's stable in articles, I don't see much point arguing. You have still not added it to a single article. Usage is not an optional criterion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only arguing about the procedural aspect of closing it before the actions agreed upon in the nomination (the replace) had taken place, not whether usage is an optional criterion. Anything can be reversed, I just wanted to point out that I didn't think it should have happened in the first place without at least some poking of the involved parties. Let it stand, what's done is done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree there should have been prodding, I'd also say that should have happened when the nom was suspended. One shouldn't need to prod a month into a 10-day nomination before closing it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 23:52:01 (UTC)

El Castillo, a Mesoamerican step-pyramid that dominates the center of the Chichen Itza archaeological site in the Mexican state of Yucatán
Reason
Replaced in all the higher EV positions with File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg
Articles this image appears in
Mexico, Tourism in Mexico
Previous nomination/s
nom, delist
Nominator
 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

A Negress is a paining by Thomas Eakins.
Reason
Only used in a list article, which doesn't discuss the painting significantly and therefore it has minimal EV.
Articles this image appears in
List of works by Thomas Eakins
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A negress
Nominator
Armbrust The Homunculus

Delisted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 04:37:45 (UTC)

Chateau Wood Ypres 1917
Reason
800 × 769 pixels is out of Featured picture standard even if that is a historic picture.
Articles this image appears in
Trench warfare, Australian Army during World War I, 4th Division (Australia), Battle of Passchendaele, Hooge in World War I, Duckboards, I ANZAC Corps, List of World War I memorials and cemeteries in Flanders, Military history of Australia during World War I, Claud Jacob, Rudolph Lambart, 10th Earl of Cavan, Sir William Robertson, 1st Baronet
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004#Chateau Wood Ypres 1917
Nominator
Alborzagros (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 00:49:58 (UTC)

Lowering the flag on Zuikaku
Reason
Excessively low resolution combined with very poor quality of reproduction. Well below featureable quality, despite its importance.
Articles this image appears in
1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy), Battle of Leyte Gulf, Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku, Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zuikaku sinking
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Considering the rarity of pictures depicting the Japanese side of the war, I feel the historical value of this picture outweighs the negatives at the present time (Few of the available Japanese pictures are of great quality anyway.) Is there a replacement image available? I would gladly support a delist-replace. Dusty777 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure the insistence on delist-replace in these things is productive. While rare, I'm not convinced these are so rare that a confusing composition, very low-resolution, extremely low-quality and heavily-damaged reproduction, and poor documentation at the file page are all overcome.
Now I don't mind if an image is a little under resolution, but 740 × 529 is too low to reproduce at much more than postcard size - and the low quality means it won't look particularly good even then. This simply isn't amongst our best images.Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the quality of this photo, you are surely right, Adam. But are there reasonable alternatives in better shape? We need to check first before voting. --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious replacements, and I did a few searches to see what I could find, but that shouldn't matter - it encourages the searching out of images if there aren't featured ones already, and strongly discourages it if there isn't. For example, one of the other images I found when lookign through the older images was an Eisenhower image, of which I did find a higher resolution version. I suspect, had it not been featured, and thus taken off the search for many, that a higher-res version existed would have been learned long ago. I think a good criteria is: if every other website on the subject has images about as good, about as high resolution, and about as sharp, what is the point of drawing attention to the image by calling it featured? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, Adam. Delist then. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was always under the impression that the reason we pick Featured pictures was... To show which pictures contribute the highest amount of value to Wikipedia articles, not based off of how much a picture, or similar pictures are used across the internet.... Am I interpreting your statement correctly Adam? (Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll only bite once.) Dusty777 00:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I will agree with the nominator. Presumably the original photograph still exists and could get a better scan with some restoration. Mattximus (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as above. I am not convinced that the rarity can outweigh the huge technical problems. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does a higher resolution and better quality version actually exist? The comments on the image's composition are a bit confusing: think about the circumstances this photo was taken in! - the carrier was listing by a truly alarming level (compare the deck to the horizon), the photographer would have been fearing for his life, and it shows a pretty remarkable ceremony by the crew. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's MUCH higher quality. Not perfect, but you can at least do something with that. I think we've proven my point. =) Thanks, Nick! I'll get on that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Zuikaku finds this image pretty quickly: http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-73000/NH-73069.html Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Adam - for some reason my search for the same term didn't find it! If anyone is interested in restoring the image, it would be worthwhile given its very strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Which of the two, though? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both have lots of EV, but I'd recommend the current image (eg, [3]) - there are less arms in the way and the tilt of the ship is more apparent. Alternately, the pair would make a great dual FP nomination ;) By the way, I'm moving to delist as it's clear that a much superior version is possible. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 12:04:24 (UTC)

Pillar coral
Reason
One of the last of the 2004 featured pictures, and with some reason, however, we simply have a lot better available, for example, File:Dendrogyra cylindrus (pillar coral) (San Salvador Island, Bahamas) 1 (15513345363).jpg
Articles this image appears in
Coral, Coral reef, Pillar coral Replaced with better image.
Previous nomination/s
Predates standard FP nominations. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004#Pillar coral
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 21:59:20 (UTC)

Not an accurate image of a human skeleton with numerous stylistic inconsistencies.
Also proposed for delisting.
Reason
Not an accurate depiction as explained below. Stylistically inconsistent and messy.
This image is an inaccurate depiction of a human skeleton. It is still of "high" quality but we should not be having a featured image that is not accurate. Previous delisting nom here but per this failed good image nomination, the winds may have changed with regard to the necessary standards of accuracy for images.
Here are my and Paul_012's list of concerns:
Accuracy
  • Skeleton has very broad shoulders vs hips
  • Legs are shown in valgus position, not accurate
  • Knee joint bones are huge compared with leg.
  • Femur is just as thick as the tibia (not true)
  • The cervical vertebrae too thick.
  • The triangle below the clavicle unnaturally big.
  • The rib cage expands sidewards strangely and does have the normal curvature
  • Distal third of the clavicle too thick.
  • Spacing of the shoulder joints is too wide. (Humeral head seems inferiorly subluxated.)
  • Left thumb is impossibly over-abducted.
  • Patella seems inferiorly subluxated.
  • Tibia is too thick.
  • Ankles are generally poorly represented.
Style - technical
  • Image not shown in anatomical position
  • "Cranium" most commonly referred to as the skull (not labelled()
  • Calcaneus labelled but not other tarsal or carpal bones
  • Manubrium labelled but is part of sternum
  • No such structure as "pelvic girdle"
Style - visual
  • Titles difficult to read and close to lines
  • Numbers of vertebrae impossible to read
  • Red vs blue lines unclear?
Articles this image appears in
File:Human skeleton back en.svg: List of bones of the human skeleton & Outline of human anatomy
File:Human skeleton front en.svg: Human skeleton, List of bones of the human skeleton, Human musculoskeletal system, Outline of human anatomy
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skeleton back.svg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton
Nominator
Tom (LT) (talk)

Delisted both images. --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2015 at 04:42:00 (UTC)

The human DNA clamp protein (PCNA) assembled in a trimer, rendered from PDB: 1AXC​.
Reason
I made this image in 2006. We now have many thousands of similar rendered protein structure images, many of which are of equally pretty and symmetrical molecular complexes, and this particular image is of unimpressive technical quality by current standards. (Compare this image of a very similar protein complex from the same article: File:1CZD.png.) I just made an incidental edit to an article it's used in and was reminded of it, and was surprised to see it's still an FP.
Articles this image appears in
DNA clamp, DNA replication, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, replisome, protein trimer
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1axc tricolor.png
Nominator
Opabinia regalis (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Other

[edit]