Talk:Sana Gallery

Quick pass through the article --- good stuff!

Hi Wikialma. I've taken a quick pass through the article and fixed some punctuation issues, cleaned up the external links, redid the citation markup style and added a bit of text to the lead. In general this looks much stronger that most of the gallery pages on wikipedia; unfortunately that's not a guarantee that the article won't be deleted to to notability concerns. In my opinion there's enough here to keep it around, but definitely keep adding information and cites and the shows continue to cycle through.

I'll also give you a heads-up about the photographs of the interior of the building. Getting photo copyright in line with what wikipedia and accept is nontrivial, and photographs of paintings that aren't yours is even more fraught. The fact that this is outside the US adds even one more level of complexity. This isn't my area of expertise, but be aware that someone will eventually ask a question about the licensing and you should have that resolved well in advance. The experts hang out at Media Copyright Questions, so you might want to ask over there if you're unsure after reading the various guidelines and policies.

It's difficult to know what should be in the external links section unless you've seen a couple thousand of them. The official policy as at WP:EXTERNAL.

Overall I think you've got a winner here! Don't be shy dropping by the teahouse with questions, and you're welcome to ping me with questions on my talk page as well. GaramondLethe 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I've added another source, and with what was already there I think that's enough to warrant removing the tag. However, I'm concerned about two of the photos, as they depict copyrighted works. Unfortunately, a photo of a copyrighted two dimensional work becomes a derivative work, and thus are likely to be regarded as a problem. I'll check this, but I think those two won't be able to stay. Otherwise, great work on the article - my apologies for the copyright issue, but the article itself is very well done, and copyright on Wikipedia is a difficult field to navigate even for those of us who have been here far too long. - Bilby (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)