Reason

Sadly, this image in not quite up to the minimum required of an FPC, and despite my searching I have yet to locate a higher resolution version (in fact of the versions I have found on the net ours is and remains the largest). Thankfully, our FPC guidelines state that exceptions are made for images of historical quality, and I feel this image qualifies. The Battle of Shanghai marked the end of minor so called "incidents" between the Imperial Japanese Forces in China and the Chinese forces on the mainland, and brought China and Imperial Japan into a full blown total war which would last for nearly eight years. The Japanese attacks in Shanghai were brutal, as the Japanese forces often made no distinction between civilians and combatants. In the aftermath of one such attack this baby was very nearly the only person left alive, and I feel this powerful and disturbing image clearly conveys such a historically important moment, thus I nominate this image for feautured status. Two different version are submitted here for community consideration: the original, and a retouched version by Bellhalla (talk · contribs).

Articles this image appears in

Second Sino-Japanese War, Aerial warfare, Battle of Shanghai

Creator

Original image credited to: Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Overseas Operations Branch. New York Office. News and Features Bureau. Image now in the hands of the National Archives and Records Administration.

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Link to previous (failed) nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very regretful oppose This is the sort of photograph that ought to be featured. It grabs the viewer's attention and interest in a way a thousand words can't. Unfortunately the technical specs of this file simply aren't adequate by minimal standards. Urging fellow Wikipedians to communicate with their local libraries, archives, and museums and persuade them to release media to the same high standard as the Library of Congress scans. I really hope to see this on Wikipedia's main page someday. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This picture was very significant in history. I understand that it was widely printed in the American media and was one of the reasons why the US public supported American sanctions against Japan for its aggression in China. There must be a better copy of it somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling myself that, but my searches have all ended in vain. Perhaps someone with a greater knowlage of images and thier databases could find an improved version, but alas, I know not whom that may be. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it's just too small. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 1: It explicitly says in the FP criteria about technical quality and resolution: "Exceptions to this rule may 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." Pretty sure this satisfies that. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - This is below the technical requirements but I dearly hope a better res version can be found (per CLA68). This is such a compelling image and it brings tears to my eyes - Peripitus (Talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see why everyone is opposing this based on technical quality. It clearly falls under the exception delineated in the FP criteria. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions can be made in the case of exceptional EV and quality/size that's at least passable. But both the quality and size here are just too far from the requirements for an exception. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my comment above. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have you tried contacting the National Archives? You'd be surprised how often just asking works. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]