Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460
Appearance
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2012 at 10:34:04 (UTC)
- 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)
- Weak support, looks a little soft Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Source link doesn't work... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- The work is by Kabelleger... Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but the link under "Source" in the image description is dead. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was removed. Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but the link under "Source" in the image description is dead. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The work is by Kabelleger... Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Weak oppose per softness issues. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support I agree completely with Purpy Pupple Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The composition and "wow" factor outweigh any technical deficiencies IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Only 4.5 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)