User:Nikkimaria/Passing an image review

Appropriate use of media is a criterion for Featured Article status, and is also considered at the A-Class and GA level. This page outlines some of the things you should consider when trying to get an article to pass an image review, or generally want to improve the use of images in an article.

Look at the article
Before even considering the nitty-gritty of copyright details, look at the article. The point of having media at all is to support the content and assist in reader understanding.
 * Are there images? For most topics, there will be at least one thing that will benefit from illustration. Having images also helps break up the flow of text and create visual interest. If there's not a relevant image already uploaded, you may need to try to track one down. Consider: if you were not at all familiar with this topic, what would you want to see? What would you expect to see in a treatment of the subject? What would help you understand? This can also extend to other media types - for example, a musical excerpt can be very helpful in an article about a composition.
 * Are all of the images relevant and appropriate to the article, and of adequate quality? Too many images can be just as problematic as too few. Since Wikipedia is not an image repository, not all articles need image galleries. You should also consider style guidelines like those dealing with when to use or not use icons.
 * How are the images formatted? Fixing a px size for an image is not generally recommended; images can be scaled using upright where needed, for example to allow readers to see details that may be lost at a smaller size. Also consider image placement: messing up headers or sandwiching bits of text between images should both be avoided where possible.
 * While alt text is not currently a FA requirement, it's good practice to include it.
 * Don't forget to consider the captions. Captions should generally be present, clear, and succinct. If the media is a map or diagram, a legend should be included either within the image itself or in the caption. Sentence fragments should not end with a period, but sentences should. Much as with the lead section, material likely to be challenged (particularly if it's not already in the article) and quotations should be cited.

Look at the description pages
Click through to the description pages of all media in the article, including in any templates, navboxes, etc. (Yes, those count too!). Generally that description page should include information on what the image is, its provenance (source, author, date), and its licensing status. For each media item, look at the appropriate section below - own work, free but not own work, non-free - as well as at the other considerations. Don't assume that just because the image has been uploaded by someone else, or even is used in other articles, it is unproblematic; look for yourself to see whether everything checks out.

Own work
We generally accept on faith that an image claimed as own work is the work of the uploader. However, keep an eye out for elements within the image (such as a watermark) or contextually that call this attribution into question. If you are in doubt about the image's provenance, you can try using tools like TinEye to track down other online publications of this image, which may have further details. Keep in mind that facts cannot be copyrighted but originality of expression can be. Derivative works may or may not garner a new copyright.

If the image is not a photo, one or more sources should be provided to verify that it is accurate. For example, a map showing the range of a species can be cited to a textual description.

Own-work media files should be released under a permissible license. Licensing "for use on Wikipedia only" is not allowed. If the copyright holder is a non-Wikimedian who wishes to donate the file, an OTRS ticket is often used to record their release.

Free but not own work

 * If the media file is hosted on Wikipedia, it should include a licensing tag indicating its status in the US. If it is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and is from outside the US, it should include an additional tag indicating its status in its country of origin - different countries have different rules about copyright. A few tags state they apply worldwide - you can in such cases omit a US tag.
 * Be explicit - even if it's blindingly obvious that a work is out of copyright due to its age, it should still include a tag specifying why that is the case, and support for that assertion. See the list of copyright tags on Wikipedia and on Commons.


 * Make sure you read the tags in use and follow any conditions or requirements attached to them. For example, the text of PD-old-70 on Commons indicates that an additional tag is required to indicate the work's status in the US, so don't forget to include one.
 * Make sure that enough information is included on the description page to verify the licensing. For example, if you're using that PD-old-70 tag, who was the author and when did they die? If this information is not available, be careful about making assumptions: for example, while the author of a 1740 painting has certainly been dead over 70 years, the author of a 1920 photograph may well have not.
 * Sources should be provided, and should be as complete as possible. Wherever possible, provide information on the original source if the immediate source is something else.

Non-free

 * Non-free media are allowed if uploaded locally and if they meet the non-free content criteria.
 * There should be no free equivalent available. This also extends to situations where a free equivalent could be created - generally non-free images of living subjects are harder to support.
 * Generally speaking, the fewer non-free media in a particular article, the stronger the argument in favour of keeping each. Don't use more than one to convey the same thing.


 * Each non-free media file should include a fair-use rationale specific to the article explaining how it meets each of the non-free criteria. In particular, make sure the "purpose of use" is made clear - convince the reader that having this particular file in the article significantly increases reader understanding of the topic.
 * Make sure an appropriate non-free tag is included, such as non-free biog-pic for biographical images. See the list of non-free tags.
 * Be aware of media-specific guidelines on non-free files, such as those governing length of music samples.
 * Sources should be provided, and should be as complete as possible. Wherever possible, provide information on the original source if the immediate source is something else. The presumed copyright holder should also be named wherever possible.

Other considerations

 * A single media file might have more than one copyright status. For example, in countries without or with limited freedom of panorama, a photo of a sculpture may need to consider the status of both the photo and the original work. Similarly, a musical recording should consider the copyright of both the performer(s) as well as the composer(s) of the work being recorded. In such cases, details and licensing tags should be included for all potential copyrights (and be clear about what applies to which).
 * It is possible to link to external media, using external media or similar, from within the article body. Such instances are subject to the same relevance/appropriateness requirements as actual media. Linking to likely copyvios is not allowed.
 * If you can't demonstrate that an image is free in its country of origin, you can still upload it locally if it's free in the US. Only if it's not free in the US might you need to consider a fair-use claim.

Common problems

 * A common error is to assume that "created" and "published" are equivalent - they are not! If the tag in use requires publication by a certain date, make sure the image was actually published by that time. Even very old images that were not initially published may still be covered by copyright. Note also that the meaning of "publication" can vary between jurisdictions.
 * non-free historic image is not appropriate for every non-free image that happens to show something historically significant; it is primarily intended for cases where the image itself is significant, such as the Tank Man photo.
 * See this Signpost article for numerous case studies of problematic non-free image use, and this one for a few examples of problematic free images.