Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2016

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: File:Jupiter diagram.svg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 14:47:59 (UTC)

Diagram of Jupiter
Reason
Discussion at WP:ERRORS today, permalink to current discussion is here. None of those participating in the complaint (Jnestorius, Andrew Davidson, Modest Genius) seem interested in utilising the correct process for this kind of issue, but I'm pinging them so they can contribute here with their various statements.
Articles this image appears in
Jupiter
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Diagram of Jupiter
Nominator
The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Maybe people would be more likely to utilize the procedure here if it were easier to do so. I have NO idea if my vote is properly formatted, but given the horrible wording and the issues pointed out by Andrew Davidson I am voting to delist this thing. Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no dog in the fight, hence why I deleted the default "delist" vote added by the template. I simply initiated this discussion because of the recalcitrance of those who have spent half the day criticising the image without doing anything about improving it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again, since he seems reluctant to actually help with anything, here are some more comments from Andrew Davidson: diff should anyone feel they have the energy to deal with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this needs to be delisted, as long as someone who knows how can tweak some of the text. Issues are: changing "liquidier hydrogen" to "liquid hydrogren", and "gassier hydrogen" to "hydrogen gas"; changing "far north" and "far south" to "north north" and "south south" in two places (looks weird, but our article makes it pretty clear this is the actual terminology); making lines from descriptor to item being described more visible (in places, white on white); cleaning up the legend so it doesn't imply the aurorae and Galilean moon orbits are to scale; and removing/explaining the x/y offset items in the title block. And possibly a couple of other suggestions that @Andrew Davidson: could make when he gets here. These all seem text-based or line-based issues, I think someone clueful (hopefully there's someone like that who frequents this page) could fix this. Also pinging @Kelvinsong:, who appears inactive but who created the image. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
permalink to final WP:ERRORS thread: [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I question the changes "liquidier hydrogen" to "liquid hydrogren", and "gassier hydrogen" to "hydrogen gas". It depends on whether the error is one of grammar or science. From a grammar viewpoint, the correction would be "more liquid hydrogen" and "more gaseous hydrogen", which I interpret as not intended to mean a binary state, but a continuum with gaseous at one end and liquid at the other. I am not a scientist and I don't know if that interpretation makes sense in any context or if it is an accurate description of Jupiter; but it does match File:Jupiter_fr.svg "plus gazeux" and "plus liquide". jnestorius(talk) 00:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you may be right, your suggestions might be better. I don't know the technical facts. I imagine we could scare up an astronomer somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it can't be featured with "liquidier" on it. I am unqualified to address other concerns, so if "liquidier" is fixed, I am neutral, otherwise I am for delisting. jnestorius(talk) 00:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree "liquidier" is a problem, unless someone can fix it. I think the labels are a symptom of a more difficult to fix problem that the image poorly represents what is presumably a continuous spectrum from gas to liquid to (hypothetically) metallic. I don't know if this is appropriate critique but the pink is truly eye searing and presumably does not represent anything about the predicted properties of metallic hydrogen. The current text associated with the image is also not of featured standard. For information content, I actually prefer the image this replaced: Jupiter interior.png. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I read over some of the comments by Andrew and they are very significant. The use of "30 miles thick" is against convention (metric is used in scientific articles), and also weird that it's the only measurement used. Liquidier is not a word. Some things are drawn to scale and others not. It's a clear delist. Mattximus (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There are lots of issues, as discussed at WP:ERROR. These seem intractable because the artist is not currently active and we don't seem to have the source code used to generate this diagram. The method of working seems to have been to extract numbers such as the diameters from a variety of sources, to input these into a 3D renderer such as Inkscape which was then used to produce a 2D image from the 3D model. In such a case, the raw data and its supporting sources should be made available so that there's a clear audit trail. These would enable the details to be verified and facilitate recreation of the diagram in circumstances such as:
  • new data from probes and studies
  • correction of errors and omissions
  • translation of the text into other languages
Without the raw data and exact sources, such a technical diagram should not be accepted as featured. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The source code is in the svg file. I revised the drawing. The changes are: gassier to gaseous, liquidier to liquid, 30 miles to 50 km, Far north to North north, Far south to South south. The changes are supported by the 3 sources cited in the file's description. Pinging those who voted: @Khajidha:@Mattximus:@Andrew Davidson:. Side note: I checked the major axis of Ganymede and Thebe's orbits (although shown as cut off, the code includes the full orbits). They are drawn to scale. Bammesk (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response Hi, I know i’m very late to this (I mostly monitor wikipedia through my email notes these days and I guess none of you bothered to actually bring up this Delist on my talk page) but to address some of the complaints here:
* liquidier' — This was intentional because I drew the picture to the specifications in the article & other sources, which all insisted that inside these planets, there is no liquid and gas hydrogen, only hydrogen that is closer to being one or the other. The current change to the picture @Bammesk: made is wrong.
* “metallic hydrogen isn’t a thing” — If there is no such thing as metallic hydrogen, then we have bigger problems because I got the name from the article at the time I read it. The layer is pink (as it is in all the other planet pictures) because I looked for what color the (supposed) material is in real life but couldn’t find anything so I made it pink to reflect its nature as an alien substance.
* miles — The diagram is in miles because I am American and we use miles around here. If you want to change it to kilometers go ahead. It’s the only measurement in the picture because the cloud layer is really thin and so it makes sense to state the thickness in words instead.
* moons too big — valid concern, the disks look big because they are out of focus (like the background stars), it was an artistic thing. I already figured this would pose a problem which is why I didn’t defocus the moons in any of the later planet pictures.
* field of view and x/y shifts — ironic that people are complaining about both this, and saying that the image is out of scale. The image and everything in it (except the aurorae) are perfectly to scale, and the camera projection data is precisely for scale nuts like certain people on this page to dig through and verify that yes, the picture is indeed to exact scale and perspective.
* “The moons Metis and Adrastea” — I was not aware these moons exist, and i am still not convinced they do
* “North North” “North North” as it seems to have been changed to sounds a lot weirder than the original “far north”. “North North” sounds like something Kanye West came up with.

—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • – About the labels "North north" and "South south": it is the terminology used in [2] fig 8.4, [3], [4] (paper's title). Also google books search count for "North north" [5] is 226, versus zero for "Far north" [6].
– About the labels "Gaseous" and "Liquid" hydrogen: it is the terminology used in [7] pg 23, [8] fig. 8.14, [9]. True that hydrogen's temperature is above the critical point [10], so the gas and liquid phase are not as well defined as they are normally. However, for labels, the sources use "gaseous" and "liquid".
– About miles and km, I figure [11] km is more popular in astronomy, but I think miles are just as good.
On a side note: obviously I don't own wikipedia !! but if I did ! I would say thank you for your images, very nice contributions. Thank you, as a user.
Pinging inactive user: @Kelvinsong:
Bammesk (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
okay then I am fine with the changes you made. Thank you!! On a side note, how did you manage to edit the text with matching fonts?—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelvinsong: I replied on your talk page. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced[edit]

Delisted[edit]

Delist: Giant planes comparison[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:41:18 (UTC)

An overlay diagram showing the four largest aircraft ever built
Updated values and visual dimensions
Reason
This image, promoted in 2006, has data inconsistent with the specifications listed in the aircrafts' respective articles. Therefore, this fails WP:WIAFP#6 and should be delisted.
Articles this image appears in
Airbus A380, Antonov An-225 Mriya, Boeing 747, Boeing 747-8, Hughes H-4 Hercules, Large aircraft, List of large aircraft
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giant planes comparison.svg
Nominator
sst✈discuss
  • Delist — sst✈discuss 08:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the image is fine but the values are wrong would replacing with an updated version be suitable? It would be easy to edit. If it is deemed necessary the proportions could be confirmed or adjusted too, but a quick check suggest the values are not that far out so I suspect the image itself is still sufficiently accurate. Other than the inaccuracies I like the diagram - Wolftick (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Including the Spruce Goose (a one-off eccentricity from the 1940s which only flew a small number of times) alongside aircraft which entered series production or have had lengthy careers is also problematic. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now updated the values and visual dimensions of the diagram according to [12][13][14][15]. Suggest either Delist and Replace or update original as new version. Diagram now fulfils WP:WIAFP#6 which was original reason for delist. I don't think the merits of the H-4 being included is in the scope of this nomination. - Wolftick (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have also taken the opportunity to update the names per Talk:Antonov is missing which makes sense to me from a consistency point of view. Also removed the Intercontinental/I suffixes from the 747-8 as the only two versions are 747-8I and 747-8F which are identical in size making the distinction superfluous. (nb WiiWillieWiki's comment below was made after this change) - Wolftick (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace per Wolftick's reasons and because of updated information. WiiWillieWiki 04:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I would not mind a delist and replace. sst✈ 05:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Delist and Replace: File:Jade Raymond Feb 2012.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2016 at 03:35:22 (UTC)

Original: Jade Raymond
Currently used in articles
Alt Crop
Reason
The crop has been used in articles instead of the original. Personally I think the crop is a better picture.
Articles this image appears in
none at this time
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jade Raymond
Nominator
GamerPro64
  • Delist and replace — GamerPro64 03:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Although in the FPC nomination the original gained more support, I'd agree the crop is better focusing on the subject. Brandmeistertalk 10:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R – Per Brandmeister. Sca (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R although I would personally like a slightly wider crop - looks like she is leaning forward just to fit into the small box... gazhiley 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone prefer alt crop? - Wolftick (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is the alt crop a Featured Picture if only the original pic was voted in? GamerPro64 15:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked at wrong thing. But yeah it looks better than the other alt. GamerPro64 15:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Per Brandmeister – Jobas (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do like the alt better, but could we put it into articles now and make sure it sticks? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Alt crop. – Yann (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R with Alt crop. Bammesk (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've uploaded the same crop as a new file. I personally prefer it as some above do and would support it for D&R. However it would have to replace the original crop in the respective articles to be eligible for FP (and thus render the other crop ineligible). I can do this and see if it sticks, but was wondering whether consensus is that this is the correct course of action given the version currently used was the original nom? - Wolftick (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GamerPro64:@Brandmeister:@Sca:@Gazhiley:@Jobas: An alternative crop was added to the nomination. Please update your !vote to indicate which version you support. (I have removed the css crop, as it's now redundant.) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • D&R with currently used crop as more focused on her in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 14:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • D&R with currently used crop - I like it better than the one we have right now. GamerPro64 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • D&R with currently used crop – Per Brandmeister. – Sca (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • D&R with alt crop I prefer the slightly wider crop... gazhiley 17:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Delist: George Washington Carver, 1942[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 19:46:01 (UTC)

George Washington Carver, 1942.
Reason
Not used, very late in his life, has weird composition (it's all shifted left), strange contrast (everything looks really faded), a large out-of-focus flower, what might be a hand at the bottom of the image, which is a blob - it's terrible. Perhaps you could crop that into something passable, but that shouldn't be an FP, and this should. Further, if the problem with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver c. 1910 (which clearly should be the FP of Carver)is that it supposedly doesn't have enough contrast between him and the background, that one has exactly the same issue, plus all the other ones. Also, vote for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver c. 1910, because it would be ridiculous if that didn't pass while this has been on the main page.
Articles this image appears in
None! A crop, File:George Washington Carver-crop.jpg, is used, but still has most of the issues except the intervening out-of focus blobs and he left shift, while adding lots of artefacting on the ear and side of face, and fattening out all detail on his right (viewer left) cheek. And, again, every single feature in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver c. 1910 is fully visible, has appropriate texture, is sharp, and free from artefacting.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Other[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2016&oldid=875368757"