Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2017

Add links
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]

Delist and Replace: Aghdam_6.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 15:42:00 (UTC)

Original – Only a tiny subset of the new image.
Replacement - while this panorama is far from perfect, it is a 360 pano of the city with tags to individual images on Commons. For comparison the current FP is on the far right side, almost near the image border.
Reason
See panorama that includes the currently nominated image and a link (tag) to the same on commons.
Articles this image appears in
Agdam
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Agdam
Nominator
KennyOMG (talk)
  • Delist and Replace — KennyOMG (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and promote Panorama seperately: The images are used very differently, the amount of detail in the current FP is quite a LOT higher - the panorama is only 2200 pixels tall, and the section of the panorama equivalent to the current FP is not the whole height of the panorama. I'd estimate the equivalent to the current FP is maybe 800x500 pixels in the panorama; the oureent FP is 4285x2857 pixels - so a lot of information has been lost in that downsample. there's at least 8 times the pixels in the current FP for that section. That said, an overview is extremely helpful, but it's not a valid replacement. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I don't think the article has enough detail or coverage to support both as FP. Both images are used the same way: to depict an abandoned ruined city (albeit different resolutions). There is nothing specific in the article except the mosque, which is missing in both images. Bammesk (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the wide panorama over the very limited normal photo, but regretfully, Oppose unless re-stitched - there is a clear dip in the horizon in the middle section of the panorama. --Janke | Talk 08:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Janke. I wonder if any of the horizon dip is real, sometimes plains that sit next to mountains have a very discernible slope and doing a 360 would show that. I am not sure that's the case though. Bammesk (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there are two vertical black lines just below the horizon about 1/3 and 2/3 through the panorama. They look like some kind of error? Mattximus (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a dip in the horizon that is in fact even more pronounced. Unfortunately Autopano straightens it to almost level while Photoshop just can't handle it at all. Bammesk is right about it. As for the black lines good catch, seems to be a blending error. In any case I'm happy to release the source RAW images to public domanin should anyone want to take a crack at it (it's a really annoying one). KennyOMG (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the mosque is missing because it was shot from one of the minarets, if that wasn't obvious. ;) KennyOMG (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delist:File:Using the caliper new en.gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 19:50:10 (UTC)

a suitable caption for the image
Reason
The animation is showing an incorrect way to read calipers. The proper reading here should be 2.470 cm not 2.47 cm and a reading of calipers should also always state the error associated with the reading. In this case the proper reading is 2.470 cm ± 0.005 cm. As it stands, this is a reading that did not use the full accuracy of the shown instrument and neglects the important error part of the measurement so crucial when using calipers.
Articles this image appears in
Calipers, Vernier scale,
Previous nomination/s
Original Featured image discussion
Nominator
Jason Quinn (talk)
  • Delist — Jason Quinn (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The gif shows the basics. The .005 is instrument resolution, not accuracy nor error. Adding it will be misleading. Bammesk (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Several remarks: A) allowing something that "shows the basics" yet teaches something wrong would be a pretty low standard for our featured images, which are supposed to be the finest images we can offer. B) this image doesn't show the basics. It shows how somebody untrained might incorrectly read the measurement. The 2.47 cm reading completely ignores the fact that these calipers have a 20 lined vernier scale rather than a 10. C) As for error, I believe you are using "instrument resolution" in effectively the same way I am using "error" above. Technically, of course, I am referring to absolute error (which gives the range the true value must lie if the instrument is otherwise perfect. (This does not include other forms of error such as the zero point error and any systematic error from the instrument which would affect accuracy.) It is the absolute error that limits the precision of the instrument and it is under most circumstances and by default what is meant by "error" for the instrument barring systematics. No matter what, to suggest that giving an error on a measurement is more misleading than not giving any error is contrary to basic teachings of measurement. Calipers usually even have an etching that give the "instrument resolution" so that would be one way of handling that in an improved image. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) The gif doesn't show anything wrong. It just doesn't show what you suggest it should. B and C) The resolution is already etched as 1/20. There is no need to highlight it again. Doing so with a plus/minus sign in front of measurement reading is wrong. It would conflate resolution, accuracy, and error into one number (misleading and wrong). I don't object to highlighting the resolution (though I see no overwhelming need for doing so). I object to doing it with a plus/minus sign in front of the reading. Besides, with this type of caliper resolution is not a plus/minus thing. Bammesk (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten it does have a "1/20" for the resolution so I guess that's fine regarding the statement I've stricken above, although maybe "0.05 mm" or "0.005 cm" might be better. Your acknowledgement of 1/20 as the resolution contradicts your statement that the gif doesn't know anything wrong. The reading "2.47 cm" is not at that resolution. If a reading is not being at the full resolution of the instrument, rounding is involved and I fall to see how that's using the instrument correctly. It's like me stepping on my bathroom scale which has a kilogram resolution but only reading the tens place and ignoring the ones place. As for the plus/minus, that's standard notation in mathematics, engineering, and physics so I don't see why you are objecting to it. And the symbol is not "in front" of the reading but between the reading and the absolute error. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, adding the readout resolution of a measurement instrument following its measurement using a plus/minus format gives the wrong sense of measurement accuracy. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Sidenote: introducing a self-defined terminology, absolute error, does not help the discussion. Nor does the false equivalency of reading 70kg as 7kg ! [reply]
  • Surely Jason Quinn's example was meant to refer to reading 72 kg as 70 kg (or 72.3 kg as 72 kg). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's exactly right. Or in my case if the scale says 95 kg (and is rated for plus/minus 1 kg) but I "read it" as 90 kg. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. I took it in the context of dropping a trailing zero. Bammesk (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me if I'm understanding the issue correctly. Jason Quinn is arguing that (1) the nominal reading here is incorrect because it includes too few significant figures (actually, looking closely at the image I think it looks more like it should read 2.475 than 2.470), and (2) including the reading error or resolution error is standard practice that should be shown in the image. Bammesk is directly arguing against the 2nd point, saying that it is being conflated with instrument resolution and "is wrong" (though this introductory course material doesn't seem to agree). Bammesk hasn't directly addressed the significant figures issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) You are understanding my position correctly. And, great eye! I agree. If you pause and zoom the image, it does appear that 2.475 is better! 2) As for the reading error, the "1/20" does imply that information but it would be much better if the error on the reading were made more explicit. The red text should display this information because when using calipers the error on the measurement is often just as important to know as the measurement itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems like rather trivial issue that should be easily fixable by those who know how; the error disputed reading lies only in the final frame of the animation. (That said, a 10-lined vernier scale might actually be better for illustrating the concept.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a line instrument would be better for pedagogical reasons. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say "10 line instrument" above. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paul_012, there is no error in the final frame of the animation. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, it appears that the significant figures issue (plus changing the readout unit to mm) had previously been addressed by Jollyroger in the 11 June 2007 version of the file, but was reverted by the original creator. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As pointed out by Paul_012, the animation isn't even using the most "lined up" line on the vernier scale. At this point, I think this is a no brainer to call. This image is not featured image quality and would need to be modified to be considered. This is besides the resolution issue, which I also think is a deny level problem. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply – The line up at 2.470 is off by "one third of one pixel", not easy to measure and not enough to fail FP. Paul_012, for what I am saying (as you hinted above) revisit my replies above, and keep in mind that readout-resolution and measurement-accuracy are not the same thing. An example: [1], readout-resolution=.00005, measurement-accuracy=.0006. Attaching +/-readout-resolution to the outcome of a caliper measurement is misleading. About the trailing zero, I prefer 2.470, but 2.47 is not a show stopper for me, after all it is a zero and readout-resolution is marked on the instrument. Bammesk (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) That misalignment, small as it may be, is critical to this image. 2) This image is teaching how to read a vernier scale caliper; so it technically just showing the scale reading, not the measurement reading. The measurement itself would also take into account things like the zero point error and any other systematic error that affect measurement accuracy. Those are assumed to be zero for tools unless otherwise stated; otherwise we couldn't even take for granted things like the scale being machined with a proper linear scale. Most calipers are also temperature rated to work best at 20°C so temperature corrections are other systematic obvious ignored for the image. Unless there is a good reason, systematics are assumed zero unless they are a known problem. With calipers, the zero point is usually the greatest concern for a systematic. In this case I have trouble seeing the first frame clearly enough but it doesn't look like there's any zero point error. Nor is there's any reason to invoke any other of the large number of possible systematics that could affect the measurement error. A reading and the measurement coincide on an instrument with negligible systematic error corrections. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I would prefer the measurement in mm, not cm. OTOH, the scale on the caliper is in cm, so... Also, 2.47 is correct, since 2.470 implies an accuracy of 4 full digits, not attainable here (max. vernier resolution is 0.005, not 0.001) --Janke | Talk 05:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think really deserved a closure that commented on the weights of the arguments. This strikes me as a "by the numbers" closure. And as I think the "keep" arguments are rather poor and even disrespectful to the standards we aim for with featured status, this result is an example of group think. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: Robinhunicke at thatgamecompany photoshoot, August 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 02:35:23 (UTC)

Hunicke at 2009 TGC photoshoot
Reason
The 2011 FA nomination only had half support, reasons because: inappropriate background texture and color clash with hair, noisy, cropped head, poor DOF. Really not FP worthy.
Articles this image appears in
Robin Hunicke
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robin Hunicke
Nominator
Vaypertrail (talk)
  • Delist — Vaypertrail (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Cropped head" ? Surely compo is very good, and they crop heads, check some magazines with portraits etc... crop is + here. DOF is another problem, too shallow. They often open it and not sure what will be in focus, eyes must be first, left eye is out a bit. Hairs maybe in problem - focused are not those in front but in back. But its still not so bad, and we lack on portraits. Will wait for other comments. --PetarM (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A cropped head sometimes helps the composition, as it does in this context.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These kinds of concerns were raised the first time around, but I do not feel that they detract from the image to the extent that some others do. There is necessarily a judgement call in these kinds of cases; reasonable people can disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, i think its good enough, even put it as picture of the day on Serbian Wiki. --PetarM (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting and well executed portrait, which works very well in its current location in the article's infobox. As such, I think that the FP criteria are still met. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Marvellous Spider-Man 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: Shona witch doctor (Zimbabwe)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2017 at 13:33:04 (UTC)

a suitable caption for the image
Reason
1. poor quality: over-exposed, and even burnt-out areas; 2. it's a tourist setup, and not a true depiction of the stated subject
Nominator
FunkyCanute (talk)
  • Lets see, a) you waited a grand total of one day after this ran on the main page to nominate, b) nominated by essentially claiming that everyone who supported the original nomination on Wikipedia and on Commons was blind ("exceptionally poor quality", as if this were somehow worse than or on par with the images in this article), c) did not provide any source for your claim that "it's a tourist setup", and d) have yet to notify User:Lycaon, the photographer, despite the explicit statement that you must do so that pops up every time you create a delist nomination. When you ABF and fail to follow clear instructions, you will receive a less than stellar reception.
As for your quality concerns, this image was taken in an equatorial area on a bright clear day with a relatively reflective surface. Even with modern equipment, it's difficult to strike a good balance between shadows and highlights in such conditions, let alone with the amateur cameras of 1989. The blown highlights are limited to the reflection on the man's face and the feathers on his belt, which combined represent less than 1% of the total image area. Blown highlights are acceptable, to a certain extent, in FPs. File:Wat Phra Kaew by Ninara TSP edit crop.jpg, for example, passed FPC unanimously four months ago despite very prominent blown highlights on the reflective surface of the temple (spire?). FPC reviewers are generally able to recognize the technical limitations of a shot, and !vote accordingly.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still doesn't explain the rudeness. Just adds to it. I saw it on the main page and nominated then. It is obviously not as bad as those to which you link, and which are clearly not worthy of comment. I disagree with the original nomination and support: that's how Wikipedia works. I know enough about photography to know that even in 1989 you could take photographs of better quality in midday sun. These days (for the last 10-20 years?), with the ability to post-process digital files, I'd have expected a much higher threshold for acceptance as a mainpage feature pic. No, I haven't provided evidence that it's a tourist setup, but it is obviously so to anyone who has travelled in Zimbabwe. As it happens, I have similar pictures, which I took in 1983 (albeit of even worse technical quality). Finally, my recollection is that the nominator must inform either the photographer or the original nominator: that is, in fact, what you've said above. I chose to inform the latter. If that was an error, there are polite ways to instruct me otherwise, for example: "you haven't told the photographer, you need to do that." or, if you're a really good sort, "Hey, please advise the photographer of your nomination". You're at fault: there's no excuse for rudeness. A simple apology would suffice. Have a great day. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I specifically stated "Equatorial area" at noon, on a sunny day. Cameras handle that far differently than something at 50 degrees north/south (as I noticed very quickly during trips to Canada and Australia, my main base of operations being Indonesia). Even modern cameras will have trouble with images of reflective surfaces at equatorial areas, at noon, on a sunny day. They will either blow the shadows (assuming one compensates for the highlights) or blow the highlights (assuming one compensates for the shadows). Or perhaps you have a recent image you wish to offer as proof? I've already shown one example, from a higher latitude.
I am not going to apologize for something you perceive as rude, especially when it was not intended to be so. I perceive your statement that this image is of objectively poor quality (and implication that 15 unanimous reviewers in two nominations were incompetent), your unwillingness to actually provide a reference for your other claim, and your lack of an even pro-forma notification to the photographer (whose work you are commenting upon) downright insulting, but I am not asking for or demanding an apology, as I expect you did not intend to be rude or insulting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreement does not in any way suggest that I consider anyone to be incompetent, and it cannot follow that it is de facto insulting. If that were the case, no collaborative endeavour would be possible. Let me make it clear, I don't consider anyone to be incompetent who has remarked upon this image. No one has asked for supporting evidence, but I have said that I'm unable to provide it. That I am unable to offer it cannot reasonably be considered insulting. I wish I could provide evidence. I haven't informed the photographer for the reasons mentioned above. Since you haven't disagreed with my understanding of the due process, I will take it that I have indeed correctly followed it. To consider my following of procedure insulting seems curious. "Did you even bother..." is unequivocally rude, and you have admitted that it was intended as such: "...you will receive a less than stellar reception". But having said "When you ABF and fail to follow clear instructions...", you have failed to counter my statement of my understanding, thereby suggesting that your very premise for your unpleasant response was misplaced. You, sir, are rude. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced[edit]

Delist and Replace: Blackness Castle, Blackness, Scotland[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 09:48:25 (UTC)

Delist Aerial (kite) image of Blackness Castle, in the Firth of Forth, Scotland.
Replace Higher resolution aerial (helicopter) image. See reason.
Reason
Higher resolution version is available now, broader field of view, none of the buildings are obstructed or hidden from view, significant reduction in shadows, less perspective distortion, pier and mooring block visible, castle’s position on the water clearer.
Articles this image appears in
Blackness Castle, List of listed buildings in Bo'ness And Carriden, Falkirk
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Blackness Castle, Blackness, Scotland..jpg
Nominator
Godot13 (talk)
  • Delist & Replace with original or alternate — Godot13 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original at least for now -- The composition of the new image is better, but it looks overexposed (note how the histogram is bunched up to the right), so I can't support until it is adjusted for brightness and gamma - and unless shot in RAW, that may not even be possible. --Janke | Talk 15:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I did a bit of experimenting, here's my take: Delist and replace with alternative; gamma corrected and uninteresting areas cropped out. --Janke | Talk 13:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate version, cropped & gamma correction
  • Delist Both have flaws, but the new image is the better of the two. lNeverCry 20:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Alternate be on Commons? I support Delist and replace with Alternate, if the upload meets guidelines. Bammesk (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the alternate is approved, it can probably overwrite the original? I'll let the nominator decide... --Janke | Talk 08:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't overwrite the original - it is a different angle, and has some features the alt doesn't (people, boats). --ELEKHHT 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant the original of the new candidate. The alt. has already been moved to Commons (not by me), so we're good... --Janke | Talk 09:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace with second alternative - the square framing works well. This alternative provides a better overview of the setting and layout. --ELEKHHT 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Janke- I'm good with the alternate version. I do have most of the raw files for my images (all the raw files for images in the past few years), if it makes a difference... Please don't overwrite the original. Why don't you upload the image to Commons under the same title as the original with "alt" after the "01" and indicate it is a derivative of the original file.--Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already on Commons, moved by "FastilyClone". I tried my best to add your credit and license. Hope it's OK now... --Janke | Talk 09:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace with second alternative. I would be sad to see the first image delisted as and it does give a bit more detail on the building and the angle really shows why it's called "the ship that never sailed". However, the higher angle of the new photo gives a better sense of the layout of the castle, shows more behind central tower, and has softer shadows. I'm a fan of both images. Nev1 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:NEWScotland-2016-Aerial-Blackness Castle 01.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delisted[edit]

Delist: File:Portrait of a Man by Jan van Eyck-small.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 02:08:25 (UTC)

Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
The entire painting
Reason
This is not even the entire painting. That happens to be File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg, which includes a virtual frame (actually painted by Van Eyck). As such, this image is not the one the painting's article uses, and thus its encyclopedic value is fairly low.
Articles this image appears in
A bunch, but only because it's in Template:Van Eyck.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of a Man by Jan van Eyck-small.jpg
Nominator
—howcheng {chat}

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: Temple of the Dawn[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 03:00:52 (UTC)

The front entrance of the Ordination Hall Wat Arun
Reason
Image has been orphaned. It was removed from the article and replaced with a different image, which has recently been promoted. The article isn't quite long enough to support two FPs of the same subject. (Note: The creator is currently blocked on enwiki; not sure if a notification would be appropriate.)
Articles this image appears in
Used to be in Wat Arun.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Temple of the Dawn
Nominator
Paul_012 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: File:Cheetah4.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 20:40:30 (UTC)

Cheetah
Reason
The image is small given the current FP standards, 1600x1196 pixels and 314KB. We have a FP in a similar pose with higher resolution in the head area [2], and two others [3], [4]. The image has weak EV, it is used as the lead image in Cheetah Conservation Foundation, a stub, however there is no indication that the image is associated with the foundation. It is used in a list-style manner elsewhere.
Articles this image appears in
Cheetah Conservation Foundation, Felidae, Feliformia, List of carnivoran genera, List of species in order Carnivora, Mountain Zebra National Park
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cheetah4.jpg
Nominator
Bammesk (talk)
  • Delist — Bammesk (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - could be replaced in referenced article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - It is a nice picture, but resolution is tiny, and we have way too many featured pictures of cheetahs already. Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Jobas (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per nom. lNeverCry 05:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Other[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2017&oldid=817508516"