<p>The question <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/311831/why-does-vgg16-double-number-of-features-after-each-maxpooling-layer">Why does VGG16 double number of features after each maxpooling layer?</a> was put on hold after I had already answered it. As such, I think the OP cannot accept my answer (correct?).</p>

<p>In hindsight, I should have seen that coming, because I think that <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4990/are-machine-learning-questions-about-an-incorrectly-working-piece-of-code-consid">Machine Learning questions are more at risk of being off-topic than other questions</a>. However, unlike the question I mentioned last time (<a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/309037/backpropagation-in-multi-layer-perceptron-mlp-doesnt-converge">Backpropagation in multi-layer perceptron (MLP) doesn&#39;t converge</a>), which I voted to close, this time there's not a line of code in the OP's question: it's purely a question on a certain CNN architecture (VGG16). </p>

<p>If I edit the question removing the reference to Jeremy Howard's fast.ai course, and I add a reference to the paper where VGG16 had been presented, do you think the question could be opened again? Is it acceptable if I edit the question, instead than the OP? I'm not begging for the question to be reopened, just exploring a possibility. If you think it has to be closed, I won't do anything.</p>
