Dcaso95 in the upload you state that this is your own work. That would mean that you took the photograph of the subject. You dated the photograph as 27 January 2024, but given that she died in 2015, the date is impossible. If you did not take this photograph personally, the license provided is incorrect. The date needs to reflect when it was actually published (not necessarily the same date as when it was taken). The author is whoever took the original photograph with their camera with the subject present. Can you confirm that you were actually the photographer and provide evidence that it was published in a newspaper, journal, etc. and when that publication occurred? This is critical as the article was nominated as a Good Article when you removed the fair use photograph which was documented with who took it and when, and the reviewer is now calling into question the use of this image. SusunW (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, as this was my first edit on a Wikipedia page, it seems that I made some mistakes on the process. The fact is that Edith García Buchaca was my great-grandmother, and when me and my family saw this article we were very content, as it is greatly documented and the author seems to have done an amazing work. However, the photo that was posted was not from Edith García Buchaca (who was in the background in the photo), but from Vicentina Antuña, another cuban politician from the time. This was told to me by both my grandmother and my mother, who of course knew how Edith looked like when she was that age. I asked then from a photo of Edith to my grandmother and uploaded it (poorly it seems). 27 of January of 2024 is just the date of upload of the file, we believe that this photo was taken from the period between 1939 and 1940, either when she was tasked from the PC with the organization of the "III Congreso Nacional femenino" (inaugurated on 18th of April, 1939, in the Teatro Nacional of La Habana) or when she was a candidate to the "Asamblea Constituyente" in representation of La Habana (1940). Of course I did not took the photo (nor I know who did it). To prove all of this we have several photos of my great-grandmother that can be provided. Dcaso95 (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Dcaso95 Thank you so much for replying. I appreciate your kind words about the article. I tried really hard to do it well. Also thanks for the photos. We would love to have more, if possible. We can fix the photo issues, but there are some steps involved. First the date and author needs to be fixed. I am fairly sure the next steps involve sending a form confirming ownership and release of the photograph, but I don't know how to get the form or where to send it, sorry. I am good at writing, technical stuff not so much. I am going to ping my friend GRuban to see if he can help. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hola! So we have two likely possibilities, we can either

• have the photograph be in the public domain in Cuba and in the United States, which would mean following Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Cuba#General rules: basically either we know the photographer died before 1972, or the photographer can't be determined but we know the photograph was published in Cuba before 1972. This is probably what we need for a professional newspaper or magazine photograph; in other words we need to be able to explain where the photo came from, and why we think Template:PD-Cuba applies. I don't think what you wrote just above is enough for that, it's got too many "we believe" statements in it. If you could find the actual name and date of the newspaper or pamphlet that the photo was published in, or the name and death date of the photographer, that probably would be enough.
• have the photograph copyright be released by the copyright owner. This seems possible for a family photo (rather than a newspaper/magazine photo) and you inherited the rights to it. For that, you want to get the copyright owner - the photographer or the heir of the photographer - to fill out the form at Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator and possibly explain the ownership in more detail - "This photo was taken by X, who was Edith Garcia Buchaca's son/niece/granddaughter, and died in 2012, I am X's heir, Y" or "who doesn't have email but is authorizing me to release this photo under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/, my name is Y". Email all that to [email protected], you can cc me if you like, [email protected]. Hopefully the volunteer receiving that will accept it, though they might write back to ask for more clarifications.

You can click on all those blue links for more details. Thank you! Muchas gracias! --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you GRuban. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Dcaso95 Sorry it you already saw the reply, but since George didn't ping you and you are a new editor, I wasn't sure if you had seen his reply. SusunW (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dcaso95 and GRuban: any update on this? We either need to resolve it, or I have to remove the image to allow Cielquiparle to complete the GA review. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to remove it. Dcaso95's comment indicates they're not the copyright holder, and don't know when/where it was published, so we can't be sure it is public domain. We can still have hope they will come through either with the publication information of this one or with a family-owned image, but until then... --GRuban (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)