Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1978.jpg

File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1978.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 04:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1978.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1978.jpg

•  Info created by Carl Lender - restored from File:Queen - Freddie Mercury.jpg by Lošmi - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I was thrilled when I saw that we have such a good photo of Freddie Mercury on Commons. The image is noisy, but it's a rock concert picture so I find some noise quite normal. Also, the image is much larger than required, and in minimum and print size the noise is not so visible. -- Lošmi (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the fact that it was taken at a rock concert in 1978 account for the noise, and while a bit more denoising wouldn't hurt, I think this is about the best we can hope for when it comes to finding a free picture of this subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good shot --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose very low quality --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as George Chernilevsky. Lycaon (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Too low of quality. Tiptoety ^talk 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low quality. --Karel (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Maybe renominate it to Valued images?--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't remember it ever have been nominated at VI??? Lycaon (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Given that this was taken on high iso film (one assumes) the almost 20 megapixel size seems completely unjustifiable. I would suggest with downsampling to around 5-6Mpx and a bit of a selective denoise and sharpen it would scrub up quite well. Flying Freddy (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)