This file is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
This file is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
I have replaced the previous, untemplated fair-use statement for the above image with the templated version given at WP:NFURG. However, the image includes no source information; e.g., "digital picture of CD taken by User:X" or copy of http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/c2/a0/e84feb6709a01b614d091110.L.jpg resized by User:Y". (I am not claiming either of these as sources, nor am I suggesting that copying an Amazon image is legally acceptable. The point is that the actual source must be cited.) Without a specific source, the image may still be deleted. ~ Jeff Q(talk)11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed "allmusic.com" as the "source" for this image, because it is neither specific nor accurate. First, just listing a website is not a specific source for an image. If it's coming from the web, it should have a specific URL, and its incorporating webpage should also be given. Second, the source image can't be the logically assumed AMG primary graphic for its article on the album Time Out because that image is 200x194, whereas ours is 301x300 (i.e., different size and width/height ratio). Either someone processed the image (which should be made clear), or it is not the true source of the image and the claim is just speculation.
Here's an example of what I believe would be an adequate source (if true), based on what I found at AMG and a bit of speculation:
It's concise and precise, provides readers with the information they need to verify what they can, and (not incidentally) reduces the suspicion that someone just slapped a convenient and plausible but vague "source" on one of the thousands of inadequately sourced images just because it was flagged for potential deletion. ☺ ~ Jeff Q(talk)15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
