It's in the rules. No usage at the end of a delist is grounds for delisting, regardless of votes. The delist serves as warning to put it in articles of it's not to be auto-delisted, but that's unlikely in this case. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs20:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 May 2021 at 15:23:47 (UTC)
Reason
As much as it's a useful gif for demonstrating how roundabouts work, it's definitely not the best we can offer and most definitely not a featured picture a decade-and-a-half after being promoted. Our standards have changed and this is a low-quality stuttering 25 frame gif that arguably has many of the cars driving dangerously (and therefore not a very educational gif in regard to road safety). Undeniably fails WP:FP?#3 and arguably WP:FP?#2.
Delist per the nomination statement. This isn't an example of our best work on the grounds of quality and accuracy. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 23:16:39 (UTC)
Reason
Image is below current minimum resolution requirements (1,600 × 1,067 pixels); the scale is just a guess according to the original FPC discussion (based on measurements of a different spider); the licensing is crappy (CC-BY-NC + GFDL 1.2-only); and natural backgrounds are now preferred for animal photos (AFAICT).
Delist While I don't think we should delist historic FPs just because they're of resolutions too low for modern FPs, this hits a number of problems beyond that, like the unneccessary black and white. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs16:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. With no historical significance to this particular image, it would be easily replaced by a new image of appropriate quality. A different version of the same image appears to be available at double the resolution at File:Deuces Wild (44276782).jpeg but that is still low by modern standards and doesn't affect the other issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2022 at 17:00:38 (UTC)
Reason
Quite simply, the Library of Congress has rescanned this, it's now far, far better quality than the one we used to have, and thus a much better restoration can be done. Also, given it's used on Chromolithography, cutting out the colour check on the right - which shows the inks appearing in it and provides a quick check that all of them were printed - seems counterproductive when it only adds value. A defining feature of Chromolithography is the number of inks used in the high-end stuff, which this demonstrates.
On the restoration, I've checked, and in other paintings of the same scene he made he put a paint spill on the ground about where there's a blotch in this one, so I think that blotch in the shadow between her and the easel is meant to be there.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 18:37:43 (UTC)
Reason
Legs appear heavily photoshopped (where are her knees?), butt proportions seem way off, spine should likely have cracked.... Honestly, I think this was a reasonable FP for when it happened, and it should have been on the main page years ago. But it's far, far too late for it now.
I think best case scenario, it's a photo of her, in her job as a model. However, it's also not even the lead image in her article. I have the vague idea it used to be in glamour photography, which I think would do a lot to justify it, but it's not there now. And then there's the... simply terrible usage from the original nomination. [1]. I somewhat feel bad nominating it, because I feel as POTD co-ordinator I should be a little more dispassionate, but it's also clear people are willing to spend three pages complaining about how bad of an image it is without taking any concrete action, so perhaps I can justify the nomination on the grounds of "I'm speaking up for people who will not listen to advice on proper forum to deal with the objections they're making". Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the objection is, as it was there, that the image isn't good enough for featured picture status, this 100% resolves the question. If there's anything else worth objecting to in the queue, I'm 100% sure I'll hear about it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This, not POTD, is the most appropriate venue to deal with quality issues. Other issues are irrelevant if quality isn't there, because quality alone can block it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - poor quality image, a poor example of the genre, an inaccurate likeness of the person, little if any educational value. Levivich20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although, since it's unused, it's basically automatic unless someone can find A. a good enough identification that we can use the image with confidence (Sasata's message may well be enough), and B. a place to use it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs17:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it is identified, sort of, but as a provisional species. Which means that until it's made an official species, it's in a limbo. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a good enough source to add it to List of Amanita species? There are other species in that list indicated as indefinite, and there is room for the image. I'd rather not do so myself, since the only thing I know about mushrooms is not to eat ones found anywhere except the grocery store. blameless21:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The name has definitely made its way into the literature, but (just from some quick googling) it looks like the species hasn't been formerly named yet. For example, it has an entry in this book, which is from a university press. (The lead author is a prolific mycologist.) This seems to be the original (but not formally published) description; at least, it's cited in at least one scholarly paper. But this isn't a straightforward situation. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is rather bad digitization on my humble opinion. And its watermarked. I am often opposed cloning out trash from photos, but cloning out a watermark from the painting is basically equal to conservation/restoration. Not acceptable under any circumstances. --Andrei (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't delist FPs every time they are replaced with higher quality versions of themselves. The image is used in articles (just not the older version). Bammesk (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Comparing the two, the candidate (Bastei) has softer and more even lighting, which I prefer. The second (...img04.jpg) seems to have a bit aggressive local contrast. Composition is more balanced in my opinion, too. Resolution is about 40.5 MP vs 36 MP, which is a very slight 11% more. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2023 at 08:41:25 (UTC)
Reason
Okay. First of all, a version of this with lower pixel size, but far more detail exists: File:Charles Darwin by Elliott & Fry, 1874.png. It's restored well, but the Library of Congress version is degraded, and that's... basically a fundamental obstacle.
It's also questionably dated: Harvard says 1874, this says c. 1880. This is kind of a problem when one of the big draws of it was having a date nearer certain books' publication. It was put in Rotogravure as an example. There's no source for it being a rotogravure. It has contrast issues: His face and hair blend into the background, and that's not really an issue in the original. I think we can have multiple FPs of Darwin. Having a frontal portrait, an early portrait - there's many valuable options. However, they need to be the best copy of the image we have at the minimum, and that's not what we have now.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2023 at 20:22:03 (UTC)
Reason
Although this was good for 2011, it hasn't held up. I've uploaded File:The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, British Museum, version 1 (cropped).jpg, which is from the British Museum (more reputable colours) and of significant enough resolution to see the grain of the paper. It also shows correctly that this was a diptych. Unfortunately, that copy has some dirt and muck, so I don't think a D&R is feasible here.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2023 at 21:39:00 (UTC)
Reason
This photo has been superseded by Abraham_Lincoln_O-77_matte_collodion_print.jpg. A lot of details, such as wrinkles on Abe's face, are missing. There is even a signature on the photograph.
Delist - Gosh, it's amazing how busy FP was back in those days. Between the weird white sliver, false copyright claim (this sure as heck wasn't taken in 1900), and quality of the reproduction, this doesn't pass muster anymore. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Also fails the "minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height" criterion. It's probably not the only Zion Narrows pic available. GeraldWL07:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]