User blog comment:Semanticdrifter/Understanding Fair Use/@comment-1474707-20121128132007

Number #3 in your "things to consider" - "Could this article stand on its own without the image or content?" - surely the answer yes to that question would reduce its rationale for fair use? If the copyrighted image isn't necessary to the article, then why not use a free alternative or nothing at all?

In wikipedia's page on this, their point number 8 is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe only using copyrighted material when necessary to aid understanding, rather than as extra unneeded fluff, would increase the likelihood of something qualifying as fair use.