Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Galanthus nivalis close-up aka.jpg

File:Galanthus nivalis close-up aka.jpg (delist)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 01:09:51

•  Info It is too small. The file size is only 103 KB. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist --Kreuzschnabel 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I asked the author perhaps for a higher resolution. This iamge is still an FP-image for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist Will reconsider if a higher resolution / quality image becomes available. -- KTC (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Still sticking with delist I'm afraid, given the blown petals. -- KTC (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Keep I've uploaded a version with a higher resolution, but please keep in mind that this images is nearly 10 years old ;-) -- aka 08:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it is nearly 10 years old, and it doesn't meet today's standards. That is why I am delisting. --Nobelpeopleuploader

•  Keep Current version is not bad enough to warrant delist imo. Keep in mind that not promoting today should not translate in delisting today... --DXR (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't understand the reason for delisting given above. I would understand a problem with the resolution (which is now ok, was indeed quite small before) or any quality problems caused by the strong compression (banding, which is present, so this might be a valid reason). But the file size in itself surely isn't a reason for it being a bad photo? — Julian H.^✈ 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Delisting from FP does just mean it’s no longer considered one of our very best ones. Nothing to do with "bad photo". --Kreuzschnabel 11:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, ok, not the best choice of words from my side, but that's not the point. I was just questioning the choice of file size vs resolution and sharpness as an argument. — Julian H.^✈ 11:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist . Only flower is sharp, but not a plant stem (ru: стебель). --Brateevsky {talk} 10:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist Size is barely OK, and I think that the focusing could have been done in a better way. This could perhaps be a "Valued picture" instead. - Anonimski (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral A larger image has been uploaded. The background and composition are good. Shame the centre part of the flower is in shade and the outer petals are blown white. Perhaps if we had other featured images of this common flower I'd be more inclined to delist. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep as per DXR, don't see a reason for delisting --LC-de (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep per others. --Kadellar (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist Large patches of white are blown out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep --LivioAndronico talk 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist Blown whites. --Kreuzschnabel 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Kreuzschnabel, you voted twice, a mistake certainly....:) -- Christian Ferrer 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  CommentOoops, thanks. Canceled the first one to keep the one with statement :-) --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep the pure white do not affect the final image, having a better image with the same subject is not a reason to delist, and this is not the case... And this is a 2005 image, come on! -- RTA 05:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The age of a pic does not count in a delist discussion. The delisting procedure is explicitly made for images which do no longer comply with rising standards. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Kreuzschnabel by your logic, and Nobelpeopleuploader, all images will not be FP in 10 years from now... I just pointed the age, because for a image that old, it is pretty good... -- RTA 14:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry but in 2005 it was already well possible to avoid overexposure. 4 mpix resolution was not a breathtaking resolution even then – in 2005 the Nikon D200 was released, offering 10 mpix. – The idea of FP is to outline the very best images Commons has to offer. Present tense. It is quite normal to delist images that no longer fall into this scope. --Kreuzschnabel 21:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Delist , per Kreuzschnabel.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)