Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460

SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 10:34:04 (UTC)

Original – SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460 with IC 2000 double decker trainset, between Elgg and Schottikon

Reason: Good quality, high EV for SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460
Articles in which this image appears: SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460, Pininfarina
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: Kabelleger

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, looks a little soft Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source link doesn't work... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The work is by Kabelleger... Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but the link under "Source" in the image description is dead. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was removed. Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the source link. Regarding sharpness: One could sharpen the image a bit, then it would look much better when viewed 1:1 (e.g. try Gimp -> sharpen -> 40). I often do not sharpen images as it degrades quality and can always be done later if required. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose agree with Crisco 1492 about softness especially in the foreground on the right and on the smaller lettering on the door of the locomotive. Pine^(talk) 07:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per softness issues. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is sharp enough I think. Of course it is slightly soft if you view it at 1:1 (appears to be a combination of very slight motion blur and slight back focus), but since the resolution is so high it looks reasonably sharp at, say, 2 or 3 megapixels. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree completely with Purpy Pupple Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The composition and "wow" factor outweigh any technical deficiencies IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4.5 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]