Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian National Vimy Memorial/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:47, 19 January 2010.

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

 * Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has already passed GA and MILHIST A level assessments. The MILHIST memorials task force could use a couple more FAs.Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 51 needs publisher and date.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 18:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ref are you talking about? 51 is "Design and Construction of the Vimy Ridge Memorial" and it has full dates and publisher.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Maybe next time I should look at the second line.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. It contains details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and therefore needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT. Problematic phrases include "springtime", "the front of the Vimy Memorial after the completion of the restoration project", "cigarette box card", "Victoria Cross recipient Lieutenant Richard Jones", "the Victoria Cross", "the dedication ceremony for the Vimy Memorial". Another bit of advice: generally speaking, alt text should not contain proper names unless they're obvious to a non-expert (see WP:ALT ). The alt text for File:Plan of Attack Vimy Ridge.jpg needs to be rewritten to convey the gist of the map (see WP:ALT for advice). The phrase "A name panel on the memorial damaged by mineral deposits." duplicates the caption and should be rewritten or removed as per WP:ALT. Also, please remove the phrase "photo of" as per WP:ALT . I got about halfway through the alt text, but I hope this list of issues gives you an idea of the problems that need to be fixed. Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a number of edits. Please review and provide feedback on which may still require work.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The new version looks good. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Source in notes but not refs: Humphries. &bull; Ling.Nut 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The ref. has been added.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Overall, this looks like a very good piece and I have made a few trifling fixes. The one area that seems underdeveloped to me is the artistic side, much of which has been left to a gallery of images and their captions. I've identified some further sources on the talk page that might be useful to exploit. Please follow up there as you will. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what more can be incorporated on the artistic side using reliable sources. The article incorporates the origins, influences and artistic design of the memorial. In particular it incorporates the influences of other works, of both Allward and others, which have demonstrated influences on the memorial. I would appreciate more detail than simply saying it requires more on the artistic side, is there an artistic elements or movement that you are aware of that has not been properly incorporated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you look through the material I posted on the article's talk page? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not any clearer there what you wish to see changed or addressed.
 * The terms 'Mother Canada' and 'Canada Bereft' are both used and cited using reliable sources.
 * This page is not a bio of Edna Jennings or any other memorial model, which there were a number of, she is noted in the notes but that's as I am willing yo go with it.
 * If you wish to provide greater data on Clemesha's runner-up status I created Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission the otehr day. That would be the best place for such data. I even uploaded a copy of Clemesha's submission.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - I've been editing in this area recently, and this article stood out as one of the best articles we have on the memorials in France to the WWI missing (though here it is also one of the national memorials). I am going to add comments here as I read through the article, and have read though the earlier (GA and A-class) reviews as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the A-class review, the ending of the article was said to be choppy. I tend to agree, and the Death of Georges Devloo section in particular feels like a strange way to end the article (I always look to see if an article ends in a logical or strong fashion, rather than petering out). You said: "I am inclined to leave the Death of Georges Devloo section because the event got national news coverage in Canada, mentions in the Canadian House of Commons and resulted in official condolences from the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs." Did you consider bringing that out in the text of the article itself? As for ways to end the article, I would suggest that the "Restoration and rededication" section is the best way to end the article, unless there is more recent news. Are there plans for the future that you could end the article with? Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no particular attachment to the Death of Georges Devloo section. I was simply making a point that the events serounding his death were notable. GIiven the events took place a year ago I would be comfortable removing it at this time. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Restoration and rededication fits more appropriately with the History section of the article, which provides the flow of events from conception to current date. Would you suggest moving the entire Site section and placing it before the History section, otherwise I'm not sure how to pull it off an keep the flow. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too bothered, but thought it worth mentioning. I don't have any solution to offer, really, except the possibility of a "future events" or "future plans" section. Maybe end saying there is a ceremony or service each year at the memorial on the Sunday before Remembrance Day (though the only real source I could find for that is this). Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Finishing with the "Influence on Canada" section has met this concern for me about how the article ends, though something about ongoing commemoration and annual visits would also round it off, I think. I've just now remembered an objection I forgot to mention, which is the way that the section is titled "Death of Georges Devloo". I think that bit would be better as part of a section about who visits the site and who runs the site, and the guides and the site superintendent, and the relationship between the memorial and the nearby villages (Vimy and Givenchy-en-Gohelle) and some more on the views of the French (government and locals) on the memorial (the bit about Devloo would fit in naturally there, as an example of local French generosity). i.e. about the relationship between France and Canada in the context of the memorial. Starting from the initial gift of the land in perpetuity, to current stuff such as this which points out that the Embassy of France in Canada has an art deco representation of the Vimy Memorial in one of its hallways. More on that here (better picture) and here (details of the artist and other WWI commemorative sculpture in the hallway) and (getting a bit off topic now) here. So maybe something on how the Vimy Memorial relates to France-Canada relations? Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead says that the memorial site is maintained by Veterans Affairs Canada, but the infobox mentions the Commonwealth War Graves Commission as well. I'm not clear on the exact relationship, but from from some reading I did recently about the equivalent Australian National Memorial (at Villers-Bretonneux), it seems the various Commonwealth national agencies are partners within the CWGC (an intergovernmental organisation). In Australia, that seems to be the Australian War Graves Commission (Office of Australian War Graves), along with Department of Veterans' Affairs, Australia. The OAWG acts as Australian agent for the CWGC. Is there a similar relationship between the CWGC and the relevant Canadian agencies over this memorial? According to this page, the Canadian CWGC agent is this body (inventively called "Canadian Agency Commonwealth War Graves Commission"), and it is "co-located" with Veterans Affairs Canada in Ottawa. It may not be necessary to delve into the bureaucratic responsibilities in the article, but the lead only mentions Veterans Affairs Canada, while the infobox mentions the CWGC. Is it possible to make clearer what the responsibilities of each body are? Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The site is managed by Veterans Affairs Canada, through their Canada Remembers Division. They handle all the site maintenance (with the exception of the cemeteries which is handled by the CWGC), programming, ect and even staff their Director general of European Operations on site. There are, as I understand it, areas of shared responsibility given that the CWGC has the mandate to commemorate all WWI dead by name and the Canadian government agreed to include the names on the memorial. The CWGC does not however manage the site.
 * The Canadian Agency of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is co-located with Veterans Affairs Canada, in Ottawa, although its employees are not employees of the Canadian Government. The agency is really an arm of the CWGC and represents its interest in Canada, rather than vice-versa. From what I understand, it has responsibility for some 19,000 Commonwealth war dead buried in Canada and the United States. It doesn’t handle any of Canada’s interests in Europe. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. That's useful to know. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some minor points to finish:
 * The "Early conflicts" paragraphs are a bit confusing.
 * Should there be an apostrophe in this sentence? "The ceremony was one of King Edward VIII few official duties before he abdicated the throne."
 * Addressed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From that same paragraph, there is mention of a Vimy passport - is it possible to get a photo of one of those? - and of the speech by King Edward VIII - is it possible to quote something from that, or link to a source that gives the text of the speech?
 * Image of the passport is now uploaded: Image:1936 Vimy pilgrimage passport.jpg. However I don't believe there is room to insert it into the article. I have also inserted a short quotebox into the Vimy memorial section. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote is nice. I see there are other pictures relating to the Vimy Pilgrimage, so maybe a short article at some point may be possible if there is enough material there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The mention of battlefield archaeology is good, but something on visitor numbers and battlefield tourism would be good as well (though we don't have an article on the latter).
 * I have inserted visitor figures.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The link(s) to Western Front need disambiguating to Western Front (World War I).
 * Done.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of our articles on memorials that list names give links to articles we have on people listed on the memorials, especially VC cross recipients. You may not be able to get a comprehensive list, but a few names as examples may be possible.
 * Done. I have listed the names of the VC winners at the end of the Vimy memorial section. I haven't found a comprehensive list of notables names amongst the sources so I think going beyond the VCs might not be prudent (eventhough there are a number of impressive individuals on the memorial - ie. J. B. Ironside MM & 2 Bars, Croix de Guerre (France)).--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also found Allan Davidson, but as you say, it gets silly if you go beyond just a few examples, and the VC recipients seems the logical place to stop. Hopefully links will still be coming in the other way, though, and a list could be maintained on the talk page. One minor point: the reference you used may have been misformatted when you made that edit? Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are six mentions of Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission on Wikipedia, so someone could write an article there (I know this isn't an FA-criterion).
 * I would agree. I have actually been thinking the same thing myself.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, look, the link turned blue - I wonder how that happened? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "a dedicatory inscription to Canada's war dead, in both French and English, also appear on the monument" - is this the same as the one quoted in the infobox? If so, it would be nice to have the text in French as well.
 * Done. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article says 11,285 names of the missing dead. Infobox says 11,169. This is likely due to discrepencies in sources. Best to get the most recent and authoritative source and use that figure - remember that names are removed over time as bodies are found, identified and buried in a war grave. Numbers quoted in original inscriptions will be out-of-date now.
 * No discrepancy. Unlike other memorials which were designed with nameplates that could be removed as bodies were found and identified (ex: Hebert Perterson's body was found in 2007), the Vimy memorial is a continuous band of names and thus modification is not possible, so there are a number of cases where people are commemorated by both a headstone and on the memorial. So there are in fact 11,285 names on the memorial but only 11,169 names of missing. I'll insert a note to clarify the ambiguity. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have heard that on other memorials where the names are carved (and this is more usual than using nameplates, I think, at least for the inter-war era) the names are removed, so that might be worth double checking. The CWGC at least makes a big point about only commemorating someone once, either on a memorial, or by a war grave headstone. It is possible that the removal of the names is simply being deferred to the next restoration/maintenance project. If this part of the discussion is best moved to the article talk page, that is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well ware that the CWGC seeks to treat everyone equally and are thus commemorated by them only once. I know there was a discussion regarding amending the name list but it was ultimately decided to leave the memorial as is. The names aren't even blanked out, as is the custom on other memorial (Menin Gate, Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme, ect), because it would interrupt the continuous band of names. Last night, I check the VAC website where they have photos of all walls posted online (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=Memorials/ww1mem/vimy/expvimy/memoriam) and double check their post-restoration images against names of individuals whose bodies (ex: H Peterson) were identified and sure enough still on the memorial, even though the CWGC list them as being commemorated by an identified headstone.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. That satisfies me, and I see what you mean about the continuous band of names. Most of the points I've raised are being addressed. What is the tidiest way to note that? Strike them and leave the other comments unstruck, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked if the image of the Morrocan Division Memorial has alt text giving the inscription, but a quote of what is said there may be an idea. Not sure, though, as it may rather overwhelm that section.
 * The alt text for the Morrocan Division Memorial gives a description as well as the inscription. I believe inserting the inscription into the images text would overwhelm the section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's all I've seen on a first pass through. Overall, the article looks excellent. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On a second pass through, I thought of the following:
 * There should be a mention of the annual ceremonies and maybe the major anniversaries commemorated here and other ceremonies, other than just the inauguration and rededication. See here, which talks about "the annual Vimy Remembrance Ceremony" and "The official "Canada / France Vimy Memorial Ceremony" held each year on the first Sunday before 11 November." and "the services in Vimy commemorating the 70th, 75th, 80th and most recently on 07 April 2002 the 85th Anniversaries of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the 50th and 60th Anniversary of the dedication of the Vimy Memorial." (that would need updating). There is also mention there of "the transfer ceremony at Vimy for the unknown soldier to Canada" (in 2000) - was that at the memorial as well? It is not always clear where these ceremonies take place, but it seems the memorial is a focal point for such things. I also found this (Google cache of a 'Canada in France' ambassadorial website that doesn't seem to maintain its pages very well) that led to this pdf of speeches at the 75th, 80th and 90th anniversary ceremonies. The latter (Villepin) you already mention, but the other two anniversary speeches by Francois Mitterand and Adrienne Clarkson may be worth mentioning. There have likely been other anniversary ceremonies as well, but a reliable source listing them all may not exist, unless you want to look at newspaper archives for every year since 1936.
 * I noticed that this webpage has a video of the inauguration of the memorial. It would be nice to somehow point people towards that.
 * Luckily enough the films author relinquished copyright when they donated them to the Archives of Ontario and the archives has declared the copyright expired so I was able to upload it. See: File:1936 Vimy pilgrimage.ogg. Maybe the 1936 pilgrimage will have to be my next article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, on looking through "what links here" I found some mentions (varying in relevance and interest) of this memorial in other articles, which you may or may not want to source and incorporate: Canadian War Museum, Cross of Sacrifice, Sacrifice Medal, The Stone Carvers, National personification, Iron harvest, Canadian Red Ensign.
 * Incorporated Canadian War Museum, National personification, The Stone Carvers, Sacrifice Medal, Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and Seven Wonders of Canada. This has been completed by inserting a new Influences on Canada section. Please review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is there looks good. The only thing I would say is that it feels a bit short. The first few sentences, in particular, hint at a lot more, and as I suggested above, more on France-Canada relations (at all levels) in the context of the memorial would be good, not just the influence on Canada, but also on France. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I forgot - are there sources for the costs of annual upkeep and maintenance, and who employs the people who work at the memorial site and in the memorial park (I assume a mixture of Canadians and French), and who pays for this? This ties in with the point I was making above about how responsibilities are divided between the CWGC agencies, Canadian agencies, and French agencies.
 * No idea on cost. I haven't seen anything published. The staff are all employed or contracted by Veterans Affairs Canada. This includes the office staff, guides, shepherd (for the flock of sheep that cut the grass) and security guards. Far as I know, the cost of operating the site is fully borne by the Canadian government but I do not have a source to confirm that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I feared that there might not be definitive sources for that sort of thing, though there must be some sort of annual report somewhere, but maybe it is not made public. The bit about the sheep is instructive, as it leads back to the amount of unexploded munitions and the preserved nature of the battlefield. I'd definitely try and work that into the article somewhere (you can probably find a news story that mentions it), but these are all minor points that I'll bring up on the talk page now (instead of here). I've got just one more comment to make, and then that should be it, as nearly all my comments have been promptly addressed, or explanations given, so I'll just sum up what I think still needs to be addressed and leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But nothing else major jumps out at me, even after the second reading. Still looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Updated 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Summing up from above, what I still think should be considered:
 * Paragraph or section on the history of major anniversary events held here, plus details of any annual events
 * Paragraph or section on the management and maintenance of the memorial and park, and facilities and services provided
 * This one is not possible because there are no reliable sources on the subject. To obtain the data would require primary research alone. The guided tours are mentioned, but beyond that nothing in terms of reliably sources data is currently possible. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was unclear. I didn't mean the stuff about how much it costs to run, or how many people are employed there, but the general sort of information about what facilities and services are provided and what sort of things happen at the memorial site. I found this on an 'Interpretive Centre' that was opened in 1997 (already mentioned in the article, but the opening date is not mentioned). This page says that there is a Student Guide Programme run by VAC for students wanting to work in France as guides at the Vimy and Newfoundland memorials. And if the bit about Devloo and no public transport from the Vimy village train station is going to be mentioned, it should also be mentioned that there is a shuttle bus service from Arras, otherwise you may mislead people into thinking that travel is only possible by car, taxi, and tour bus. It is possibly to travel there independently without a car or being part of a tour group on a bus/coach, you just have to get the shuttle bus and avoid getting the train to the village of Vimy (you go to town of Arras instead). I hadn't realised that before I read the website, as the Devloo section in the article had confused me. It even left me thinking "how can the French authorities not provide transport?!", when in fact they do. One final thing that could be mentioned is: "the France-based Friends of Vimy volunteer group" (Les Amis de Vimy). That can be reliably sourced to the VAC page on the Interpretative Centre. The pictures on this page show some of the sort of things done at Vimy (note the mention of a memorial capsule, and at the bottom 'Les Amis de Vimy' presenting a medal). Here is an expenses claim for some ambassadorial staff member to "attend, on behalf of the Ambassador, the annual meeting of 'Les Amis de Vimy'", so clearly they are an established enough group for the Canadian ambassador's representative to visit them. Here is another example. It is the flavour of the day-to-day and routine and non-routine activities, not necessarily the details, but the atmosphere with some examples, that it would be nice to get across in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies I misinterpreted the intent. I think I can work something out to include much of this information. I just need to think of how to organize it properly. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Paragraph or section on the responses to the memorial over the years (by critics, supporters, locals, governments, and others)
 * Does the sociocultural influences section cover this issue sufficiently?--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it does, yes. Thanks for including that. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, varying amounts more on the above points, would round out an excellent article. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are some images here that lack a URL source for check for correct licenses. There is a missing permissions for File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg (and other information for all we know, this could be a recent painting and could be copyrighted). File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg, File:Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission - Design Comp.jpg, File:Vimy Dedication - aerial shot of ceremony.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - Design model.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - Layout.GIF (this should be in JPEG or PNG, but I will not oppose due to that) and File:Ghosts of Vimy Ridge.jpeg (the guy died before 1955, so that is not the issue) need the URL sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to help fix a few of these image problems:
 * Is this OK as an URL source for File:Ghosts of Vimy Ridge.jpeg? There is a direct link from there to a high-res version of the image.
 * Will Longstaff died it 1953. For additional information on the painter see: here. For confirmation of death in 1953 one example may be National life & landscapes: Australian painting, 1900-1940 by Ian Burn, Longstaff is on page 80-81.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg refers to WikiProject Military history/Victoria Cross Reference migration. Is that sufficient or not? The image page also says: "Photo submitted by Martin Hornby - (Gallaher Cigarette Cards)." That implies to me that it was scanned from a 'Gallagher Cigarette Card', presumably produced by Gallaher Group. The key here appears to be the age of the original cigarette card. According to this ebay page, the cigarette card series in question was produced during the war itself, and hence before 1923. For extra confirmation, see this site, which lists the sets of Gallaher cigarette cards, and the one we have here will be from one of the "The Great War VC Heroes" series (issued between 1915 and 1918). Hence all scans of these Gallaher VC cigarette cards will be PD by age. Are any of the above URLs enough to count as URL sources? I'll try and work out what is going on with the other images, so will add more here later. Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the PD1923 tag to the image. It's certainly a gallagher cigarette card but I don't know which series. Either way, the latest was produced in 1918 so certainly PD under PD1923.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg url source included on image details.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission - Design Comp.jpg url source included on image details.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Vimy Dedication - aerial shot of ceremony.jpg url source included on image details.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Vimy Memorial - Design model.jpg url source included on image details.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Ghosts of Vimy Ridge.jpeg url source included on image details.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I thought the prose was of a very high quality at the A Class Review, and it has only improved. On prose only.  ceran  thor 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Images taken care of. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not point to the image directly, point to the page that displays the image. The point of this is that a direct link to the image only allows one to easily verify there is such an image (which pretty much is obvious and stares one in the face on looking at the Wikipedia copy).  A link to the page helps one to get more information on possibly author, date, and most importantly, any copyright claims or such.  If the image exists as a link on the page (or through a search form), either point the link out (or you can add the image link next to the page link) or describe what search terms to use to get to the image.  Jappalang (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.