Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg

File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 09:23:20

•  Info This recently promoted image has an undisclosed artificial background. This was only spotted when another image by this photographer was questioned at FP. It was nominated and voted in by many users in good faith. (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) Pinging those who uploaded/nominated/voted: @AryKun, Helmy oved, Ermell, A.Savin, Iifar, Michielverbeek, The Cosmonaut, King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Radomianin, Aristeas, Meiræ, Poco a poco, Llez, Agnes Monkelbaan, IamMM, Basile Morin, Daniel Case, and Vulphere:
•  Delist -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The FPC in question is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buzzard - Flickr - Andy Morffew (1).jpg. In that one, I wouldn't say the background is necessarily fake; it's possible that it's a real background, with Gaussian blur crudely applied. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• The buzzard has a fake background for sure. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment (1) King’s point seems very plausible to me. (2) But let’s assume for a moment that the background is artificial. Why don’t we just add a hint that the background is (or may be) artificial to the file description? Then it is no longer an undisclosed artificial background. --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Because users voted on the basis that it was a genuine photo, not a fake. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• OK  Question at everybody: So we should first delist this photo and then vote on it again? Or should we use this delist request as a kind of voting against about this photo, now knowing that the background was edited or exchanged? --Aristeas (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Question It may be fake, but I find difficult to spot the wrong outlines in this picture. How are you so sure, Charles? And what about this one? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• As I said before, this one looks fine. Please download both images, examine the edges at pixel level and compare the two. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Delist per Kabelleger, below. In any case, the other one with the flower is far better. Thus, if it is also more natural on the post-processing level, let's keep this one -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Delist --Princess Rosalina 💄 451328 15:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep impossible to prove, that this photo has an artificial background. And even more, FPC rules say nothing about it. --Ivar (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes they do. I quote (my bold italics):

Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, colour/exposure correction, and removal of distracting background elements. Extensive manipulations must be clearly described in the image text, for example by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Unmentioned or misrepresented manipulations, or manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't see any proof, that this image has extensive manipulations. You are just making an assumption. --Ivar (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment The wing clearly has motion blur, but the edge of the wing is 100% sharp without any motion blur which isn't possible. That is a very clear indication that the bird has been masked, and something invasive was done to the background. The background has not necessarily been replaced, it might just have been blurred. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Delist It's also a fake, looking closer you can proof that (look at the area between the wing and body, at the bottom) and also the transition between bird and background isn't natural. The author didn't even react to the remarks on Flickr regarding fake images. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Delist --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Delist mainly per Poco. --Cayambe (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Delist per David. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Delist -- IamMM (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)