Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hidenburg

Hindenburg: "Oh the Humanity"
Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016  at 15:11:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Surprising that there is no FP yet on the famous Hindemburg zeppelin. I think all these 3 choioces can be considered as featured media candidates: the grainy burnign airship, the high res when alnded, and the famous "Oh the Humanity" live radio broadcast of the disaster
 * Articles in which this image appears:Hindenburg disaster, LZ 129 Hindenburg
 * FP category for this image:link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image
 * Creator:Gus Pasquerella/U.S. Department of the Navy/WLS-AM Radio in Chicago


 * Support as nominator – Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Original Also, its not for lacking of trying that there are no hindenburg shots at FP status here, as I did my part some years back, it just fell short. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is also a copyright-free movie of the explosion, including the "humanity" broadcast as soundtrack on archive.org. I'd support that rather than just the sound. --Janke | Talk 13:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a link? Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wellll... Archive.org - and search for Hindeburg explosion - second from top... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - image is too small, it's well below the minimum requirements. Mattximus (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1.6×1.2 M is too small? Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please read the criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Last time I read the rules it was 1k. Anywaus, "well below" to you means 20% under? Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Can anyone comment on the relationship between the resolution requirements for photos and the size of the original photograph? The first image is a recognizable historic photograph which has irreplaceable cultural significance. By insisting on a 1500 pixel size, does that mean that if some archivist had access to the original photograph, a higher-quality archival image could be created to meet requirements here? If the digital reproduction is poor, then I understand that. If this digital reproduction is the best that anyone might expect, then that gives me pause.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, one could take the original, scan it at a higher resolution, and save it with less compression. The version nominated was compressed a lot (only 200kb) and it shows. Banding and jpeg artefacting in the image. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk)


 * from looks fairly viable, though it's probably a bit too dark.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, here we go. It's now a lot better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)