Write illustration feedback by identifying the intended reader task, the specific failing detail, and the result the corrected version must show. Separate factual corrections from preferences about appearance. Preserve the approved elements and compare the new version with both the brief and the correction record before replacing it in the manuscript.
Start with the image’s purpose
A request to make an illustration better gives little direction because better depends on what the figure must communicate. State the reader question the image answers and the part of that answer that is currently unclear. This focuses the revision on a useful result rather than a general change in style.
For a diagram showing how documents move between folders, the problem might be an arrow pointing to the wrong destination. That is different from preferring a softer background. The first changes the instruction; the second changes presentation. Keep both concerns understandable without giving them an identical priority.
Identify the exact detail and location
Use the figure identifier and version in the feedback. Describe the affected label, object, connection, or region precisely enough that another person can locate it. If several similar objects appear, identify the one intended rather than relying on the word this in a detached comment.
Keep the relevant evidence close to the request. A correction to a component's shape should refer to the approved source or specification that establishes the intended form. An instruction to make it more realistic does not explain which relationship was wrong or how a reviewer will judge the next version.
Separate mandatory corrections from preferences
Mark what must change for accuracy or usability and what is an optional aesthetic preference. Resolve conflicting directions before sending the next request. A designer or generator should not have to choose between two comments that imply incompatible layouts without knowing the author's priority.
Record the reason for keeping an imperfect-looking element when it serves the explanation. A simplified shape may be intentional, while a highly detailed alternative may obscure the lesson. The feedback should preserve that judgment instead of allowing every revision round to reopen the entire visual concept.
State what should remain stable
Identify the approved elements that the revision should preserve: viewpoint, component count, label wording, or the relationship between panels. This is especially useful when regenerating an image can alter details beyond the requested correction. The reviewer needs a baseline against which unintended changes can be recognized.
Avoid overloading the request with a long history of rejected alternatives. Provide the current approved baseline and the specific change needed now. Keep the history in the project record for reference, while making the active correction clear enough to execute and evaluate.
Define the acceptance check before the next version
Write a short test for the intended result. The arrow reaches the correct folder, the label identifies the correct component, or the sequence remains understandable at the planned printed size. A concrete check is more useful than asking whether the revised image feels professional.
For subject-specific details, identify the appropriate reviewer. An author may be able to judge visual hierarchy while needing specialist help to verify a technical relationship. The correction record should distinguish those responsibilities rather than treating one person's general approval as proof of every aspect of the figure.
Reconcile the revision with the manuscript
Compare the new image with the correction request, the approved baseline, and the surrounding text. Check captions and alternative descriptions when the visual changes. A successful local repair can still leave the book inconsistent if associated wording describes the previous version.
Record the accepted file and retire the superseded version from the active handoff. Preserve origin information and perform the relevant KDP formatting checks on the publication output. Those steps support release preparation, while the feedback record explains why the image now serves its intended task. The workflow is complete when the correction is verified in context, not merely when another image file has been generated.
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers for this publishing decision.
Should all feedback be sent as one undifferentiated list?
Separate required accuracy or usability corrections from optional preferences and resolve contradictions first. The person making the revision needs to understand which outcomes are essential.
Why specify what should stay unchanged?
A new version can alter details beyond the requested repair. An approved baseline helps reviewers detect those unintended changes and preserve work that already serves the figure’s purpose.
When is an illustration correction complete?
When the revised image passes the stated acceptance check and agrees with its caption, surrounding text, and publication placement. Producing another version alone does not establish that the issue was resolved.
How wide does the full-wrap cover need to be, and how thick is the spine?
The cover width is back cover plus spine plus front cover plus bleed on both sides; the spine width is the final even page count multiplied by the paper-specific factor Amazon publishes, so the cover cannot be sized before the interior page count is final.
Prepare the cover in a book project