Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1974 Xenia tornado

1974 Xenia tornado
Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2024  at 05:47:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:Extremely high EV (one of the most well-known tornado photographs in history). It does not pass the basic criteria for high technical standards nor high resolution. However, given what the event was and how famous the photograph is, the exception clauses can be played, given the EV. As an EV note, a reverse image search on TinEye showed 224 hits, one of which is the Associated Press, who used it in an anniversary video/article back in April 2024. EV is why I believe this should be a featured picture. An additional note, one of the articles (1974 Super Outbreak) has been an "On this day" article three times.
 * Articles in which this image appears:List:
 * 1) 1974 Xenia tornado - 15,000 views in last 30 days
 * 2) 1974 Super Outbreak - 17,000 views in last 30 days
 * 3) List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes - 75,000 views in last 30 days
 * 4) Xenia, Ohio - 8,300 views in last 30 days
 * 5) April 1974 - 500 views in last 30 days
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
 * Creator:National Weather Service, uploaded to the Commons by Runningonbrains


 * Support as nominator – The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for several reasons. Did you at all check the Featured Pictures Criteria? Does not pass #1, 2, and 3. (On the intro on the FPC page you can find the link.) --Janke | Talk 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: WeatherWriter did check the criteria, they even mentioned that the nominated photograph does not fulfill the recommended criteria in their reasoning. In addition, the criteria states that exceptions to recommended FP rules can be made on a case-by-case basis. Considering the wide usage of the image, its notability, its educational value, and its uniqueness, I believe that the image deserves the FP recognition. ― Howard • 🌽33 11:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the Featured picture criteria prior to nominating. I actually noted that it did not pass point 1 and 2 in the nomination (noting, it does pass point 3, even though you say it doesn’t). If you actually read the criteria, specific point 1 and 2, “Exceptions to this rule may be made…”. For point 1, they can be made “…for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.” and for point 2, they can be made “where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration.” My reasoning for point one was explained fairly clearly in the nomination, given it is used by news sources all across the globe and all throughout the last few decades. Also, it is obvious that it is “impossible” to get higher quality image of that tornado, given it occurred over 50 years ago and only occurred for 39 minutes. With all that said, would you feel like changing your !vote to either support on grounds of the exceptions or at the very least, change it from “did you read the criteria” to some other reason to oppose. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I must admit I did not read your description well enough. My quick oppose was a gut reaction to the egregious quality of the image. It is probably a scan from a printed, rasterized image (the "removed squares" edit suggests that). BTW: One of the uploads is in color, no explanation? PS: Found a larger, sharper version (watermarked) with an image search, so there must be a better version somewhere... --Janke | Talk 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The colored image is edited and not the original. If you found an exact larger version, then please link it. Chances are, if you found a "better version", it is not free to use whatsoever. This happens to be a public domain image of the tornado, the only one I am aware of that is free-to-use, hence why every media outlet uses it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Be at it may, the very low resolution and poor quality is big no, how much ever the image is famous. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per The Herald. Murky. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. A higher resolution version exists. Unfortunately, there is no indication of copyright status at the source, but if the low-resolution version is PD, the higher-res one might be (emphasis on "might"). In any case, this version is clearly not featurable given that a better-quality version exists, but if the copyright status can be cleared up, this can perhaps be revisited. blameless  00:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.pinterest.com/pin/291326669626700545/ is better still. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I uploaded File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg. Still not FP, but much better. Yann (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)