As WPOI says Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments the core reason behind the NOR policy The published information which is the basis for the annotation ie the three lettersarrows is explained on the image description page for the uncropped map  and also in a footnote to the maps caption  ie Macmillan gives the steps in setting a blast the location and circumstances of the accident and the location of Gages lodgings and Harlows home and surgery Thoughts on this As with the image links Ive put the map back so we and others can see what were talking about     A Proving a negative This regards a recent edit  to the passage  Macmillans comprehensive survey of accounts of Gage scientific and popular found that they almost always distort and exaggerate his behavioral changes which removed the word comprehensive  This is a delicate point and I want to come up with something everyone can live with I think there are two questions here  First Was Macmillans analysis indeed comprehensive No one whos been participating have any doubt on that but just in case open the collapse list  first rate example of carefully done historical work Psychological Reports  obstinately searched all possible sources It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered Cortex  fastidious archaeological removal of the layers of legend Lancet  Even some of the most prestigious academic researchers have disseminated erroneous information Neurosurgery Quarterly  The definitive account One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary Science  Macmillan scoured all the sources and commentaries on the case and as far as material regarding Gage is concerned this must be a definitive work  History of the Human Sciences  Macmillan has shown that the record of how Phineas Gages character changed after the accident must be considered with caution New England Journal of Medicine    Second Do we need to say the analysis was comprehensive IMO I think we do because it the analysis assserts a negative which requires extraordinary research just saying Macmillan found no mention omits that such extraordinary research was in fact done Two examples from the collapse box Macmillan has obstinately searched all possible sources It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered The definitive account One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessaryWithout such a clear statement we get edit summaries such as this one   Actually theres a third question Do we need to include a quotation such as the further research is not necessary  above supporting the comprehensiveness I dont think the reader needs that I had put it in a footnote to the article recently only because another editor had questioned the comprehensiveness  in other words the quotation was there for editors not readers and this discussion can take its place  So what I suggest is that the article say Macmillans comprehensive analysis of accounts of Gage where  cite to a few of the sources supporting the comprehensiveness but without quoting them What do you think