Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Bismuth crystal macro.jpg

File:Bismuth crystal macro.jpg, delisted

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 12:36:30

•  Info Because of File:Bi-crystal.jpg. (Original nomination)
•  Delist —kallerna™ 12:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist Agreed. No use keeping inferior stuff when we have pictures that great. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist I don't think it is inferior stuff. It is still a fine and well-made photo of high value, but I agree it is not quite on par with several recent elements FPs. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I meant inferior to the best we have - after all, quality is always relative. -- JovanCormac 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I hoped that was what you meant . --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It really was - I hope our expectations will never stand still, for that will be the moment FP dies. 25 years from now, taking 3D pictures of everything might be as common as digital photography is today. And as soon as someone takes a great 3D picture of a bismuth crystal, I will be the first to nominate File:Bi-crystal.jpg for delisting, beautiful as it is. With the exception of historical photos (which cannot simply be taken a second time), every FP should constantly be re-evaluated as to whether it still is in fact among the best we have. Incidentially, I believe that the runner-up in the 2007 Picture of the Year contest, File:New York City at night HDR.jpg, might conceivably be delisted within five years' time. Its atmosphere is great, but sharpness and image noise are second rate even from today's point of view and since better images with the same composition and idea will undoubtedly be uploaded in the future (especially as HDR matures), even a picture that was once ranked as "Featured among Featured Pictures" might face delisting sooner than most would consider possible today. That is, unless there will be people who say it shouldn't be delisted, simply because it won second place in 2007; something which would not surprise me given some users' attitude towards delisting older FPs today. -- JovanCormac 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --Korall (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep It shows the structure better IMO, the new one, though high quality, is confusing because of the multiple reflections. Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)