This disputed image of a sketch by Korean artist Kim Seong-hwan has three distinct fair use rationales, one for each of the articles in which the image was posted. In reviewing Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#F7, I find good cause for refuting Labattblueboy's rejection of two of these rationales: (a) the one justifying use in Korean War, and (b) the one justifying use in War Artist. Neither are clearly invalid. In each, the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary.
This image should not be deleted.
This artwork depicts the 1950 invasion of Seoul, which is an historical event. The rationales are similarly worded, but the emphasis in the complex sentence is different. Perhaps the addition of underline and bold will be be helpful, e.g.,
In other words, the historic occupation or job title is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The historical sketch helps the readers identify the function or work output of this historic occupation or job title, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the historic occupation or job title, and illustrate the function or message of the historic occupation or job title in a way that words alone could not convey.
In other words, this image of an historical event is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The sketch helps the readers identify the event, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the event, and illustrate the event's intended message in a way that words alone could not convey.
Can someone suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my thanks for the time you invested in helping me perceive a difficult mistake. I apologize for the inconvenience this may have involved. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This disputed image of a sketch by Korean artist Kim Seong-hwan has three distinct fair use rationales, one for each of the articles in which the image was posted. In reviewing Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#F7, I find good cause for refuting Labattblueboy's rejection of two of these rationales: (a) the one justifying use in Korean War, and (b) the one justifying use in War Artist. Neither are clearly invalid. In each, the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary.
This image should not be deleted.
This artwork depicts the 1950 invasion of Seoul, which is an historical event. The rationales are similarly worded, but the emphasis in the complex sentence is different. Perhaps the addition of underline and bold will be be helpful, e.g.,
In other words, the historic occupation or job title is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The historical sketch helps the readers identify the function or work output of this historic occupation or job title, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the historic occupation or job title, and illustrate the function or message of the historic occupation or job title in a way that words alone could not convey.
In other words, this image of an historical event is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The sketch helps the readers identify the event, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the event, and illustrate the event's intended message in a way that words alone could not convey.
Can someone suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my thanks for the time you invested in helping me perceive a difficult mistake. I apologize for the inconvenience this may have involved. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)