File talk:Jacqueline Thurston Hathor 2009.jpg

I dispute the assertion that this fair-use image fails to meet Wikipedia's Criterion 8 for non-free content. Criterion 8 reads, Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This image is important to readers' understanding for the following reasons:

1. The topic of this article is an artist, whose notability centers on her artwork. Although verbal descriptions of the work are included, art is a visual medium and conveys information that exceeds what can be captured in words. Inclusion of artwork images is thus typical for encyclopedia entries of artists, both broadly and on Wikipedia specifically.
2. Wikipedia articles are rated for quality and the highest rated visual artist pages almost always include images, which are frequently fair use, especially for contemporary artists. Only 2.5% of assessed Wikipedia articles are rated "B" or higher. This article received that rating prior to being tagged. "GA" is one of the highest ratings for Wikipedia articles, comprising 0.6% of assessed pages, and are considered model articles. Here are three examples of GA-rated artist pages, all of which include multiple fair-use images: Louise Nevelson, Rashid Johnson, and Jean-Michel Basquiat.
3. This image and the body of work it represents were publicly exhibited in prominent institutions and discussed by major critics and curators in art journals, press publications, and at various museums, as noted and documented in the article. It thus provides the reader with a visual example of both the artist's work generally and of this body of work specifically, which spans two decades and figured prominently in her career. If the tagger's position is that this image doesn't add anything to what the other images communicate, I disagree with this argument because this body of work is visually very distinct from those in the other images—they convey nothing related to this one. In a larger context, including this image conveys new knowledge involving the breadth of the artist's work and its development.

Wikipedia's non-free content criteria page states that a main purpose of the criteria is "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Although tagging and removal are important functions in the Wikipedia community, their inappropriate application is a threat to article quality. It also unnecessarily wastes a lot of people's time, especially when a valid rationale was already provided with the image in question, as it was here. -- Mianvar1 15:59 21 September 2023 (UTC) Mianvar1 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Another image, mentioned halfway through the sentence and located two sections away from the place of mention. — Ирука¹³ 16:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear to me. But if it's to register an opinion about layout or placement:

1. This does not seem like valid grounds for deletion.
2. While Wikipedia gives guidance on image placement, there is no rule dictating that an image be placed directly next to its precise textual mention.
3. Many GA articles—considered model articles—have images that aren't placed directly next to their textual mentions including two that are cited above.
4. In the case of this disputed image, it actually does appear right next to text about the series it represents. -- Mianvar1 22:06 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The GA-articles and the articles you are working on have a fairly significant difference: they are 2-3 times larger than “yours”, but have the same number of non-free images. — Ирука¹³ 07:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Two of the GA artist articles cited have 2–3 times the number of total images (including multiple non-free images) as the Jacqueline Thurston article in question, so that article is actually in line with the GA articles in terms of length and images. The fact that the two highly rated articles have several public domain images and still use non-free images shows that Wikipedia recognizes the usefulness of multiple non-free images when others are not available for understanding specific, distinct bodies of work in artist articles. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states, "Images … are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." The question boils down to whether this image aids understanding of its article, which it does, as was stated here and in the original rationale.-- User:Mianvar1 22:01 26 September 2023 (UTC)

..and again, ton of text on the file description page, talk page and half a sentence in the article itself. — Ирука¹³ 21:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a fallacy to assume that for an image to be used, several paragraphs in an article on an artist's entire life and career need to be devoted to that one artwork. When an image is used it not only illustrates itself, but also the body of work it is part of, and in a larger context, the overall work or elements of it. And in this case, these things are covered more thoroughly and are aided by the image's information. – User:Mianvar1 23:43 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition, this image does not fall under the first point of the WP:NFCC: it can easily be replaced with the words “the bas-relief of Hathor is so-and-so, truncated at the top along the chin line and at the bottom along the thigh.” And if the bas-relief is not destroyed, then it is cab be even recreated by 95-99%. — Ирука¹³ 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)