Today, I came across an image (post #636149) that listed two source links. Neither of the source links exactly matched the posted image. One was taken from the artist's DeviantArt page, while the other appears to be an edit posted elsewhere. The image on this site appears to be a composite of the two, adding aspects of the edit to the original (or vice versa). I can't find a source matching specifically the image posted here.

What's the protocol for approaching this? Clear the inaccurate source links? Leave them as "they were used to make the edit"? Something else?

Definitely leave them on there for now. It's possible that the edit itself was uploaded directly or otherwise may not be anywhere else on the web to list as a source. And we purposely have room for up to five source links, in order to allow multiple sources of various qualities for the image. In this case, the two images which were used to edit it are still helpful information to have. And if/when a more specific source for the actual edit version is found, that link can still be added to the existing sources without needing to remove the others. And that way we get the best of both.

Qmannn said:
Both are direct links. Would I be wrong for replacing those with links to the pages where the images were hosted?

Add those too. Links to the artist/commissioner image page can be very helpful for tracking things down. The direct link can also be helpful as it will have a file name to work with.

The 3rd party image board links are usually going to be useless unless the artist posted it there themselves, and links to an actual gallery or other official source are always going to be preferred over image boards. Likewise you can probably get rid of the pawsru direct link if you have a better source.

I know you weren't the one who made this decision, but were you ever told why only five sources are allowed? Sometimes, an artist has more. The artist page allows for more than just five URLs.

I don't know if there's a technical limitation with it, but as far as I know they just bumped it to 5 arbitrarily (used to only be 1). It's rare that there will be that many sources, but if all else fails the description field can take some of the extras. It's not ideal, but it should at least provide the extra information to those who want it. (though if you do this, it's preferable to use the "text":http://www.google.com format to keep the description field clean, particularly for long urls)