Talk:The Virginia Quarterly Review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on people, places and things associated with the University of Virginia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. (add assessment comments) | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the University of Virginia WikiProject. | ||
|
|
|||
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Virginia Quarterly Review Spring 2007.jpg
Image:Virginia Quarterly Review Spring 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Virginia Quarterly Review is not a leading literary publication
I am deleting "leading," as it suggests universal recognition. Just because someone says so in Slate doesn't make it so. Czarnykon (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
