Talk:Freedom from Want/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 08:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Criteria
An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include cleanup, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags. (See also QF-tags). If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold. If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review. In all other cases a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.
 * REVIEW ❌


 * I am forced to quick fail the nomination for copyright infringement. At the moment the image used to illustrate the article is far too large for non-free use and must be reduced below 500 pixels in width. Per our non-free content policy:

Policy
There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.


 * 1) No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
 * 2) Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
 * 3) Minimal usage:Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
 * 4) Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
 * 5) Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
 * 6) Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Image use policy.
 * 7) One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
 * 8) Contextual significance. 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.
 * 9) Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
 * 10) Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Citing sources.A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Image copyright tags/Non-free content.The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Under enforcement it says: "provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria."...

Enforcement

 * A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added.
 * A file on which non-free use is claimed that is not used in any article (criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification.
 * A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days.
 * Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.

Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.


 * Basically the main image used in the info box is a copyright violation. It is being used under a fair use rationale but does not comply with our policies on Non-free Content. It is in danger of being deleted. The issues needing to be addressed are the image size. it must be reduced to below 500 pixels in width and the invalid rational needs to be updated with a full ten point (right now it meets 7 points and only for one article) rationale for each of the articles it is being used on, including this and each one it is linked to. This is not an easily fixable situation, but not impossible of course. it just may take some time to accomplish and as a copyright violation means it may be failed without further review. I think that with the image being the main subject, this is enough to stop for now.

Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the most unusual QF I have ever received. I have been through about 4-500 WP:GAN reviews as a nominator. I have about 20 works listed at Category:GA-Class visual arts articles and another 7 works listed at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. I have never had anything QFed for two errors that took less than 5 minutes to correct. Resizing an image and copying a FUR from another article took about three minutes. I have never heard of a 10-point FUR despite having among the most articles that have passed GA and FA review that need FURs. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that you think each of the 10 NFCC points must be addressed in a FUR. This is not the case. Several are not necessary to mention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it seems you had decided to QF this but had not done so yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm, well no. I am saying that the ten points is a check list. There are actually more than ten points when you consider two have multiple points. "Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." just means that all criteria are met and a valid rational given. The rational was not valid because there was no specific rationale for the article being reviewed but that the rational was not valid because it did use the NFCC or, did not have a valid explanation to cover the needed points. Point 4 of NFCC "4.Previous publication" wouldn't need to be proven on the rationale and I couldn't have required it. It need only be a fact, but since I was going through the trouble of attempting to correct the rational and add the needed information, I just made a direct check list. The same is true with "6.Media-specific policy." As long as it is within policy it need not be mentioned in the rationale. I add it to demonstrate that there was no issue as I had checked and actually took same action to correct. No. All "ten points and the sub-points" need not be added to the rationale. But since they are a part are what does need to be checked against to comply to the "Media specific" policy and "previous publication" I like to add them, specially when I add them in a review.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I kinda have to in that situation, but I figured someone might see the message and If not, I would have done the work. I don't have an issue with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Review
A good article is:

:
 ; and</li> There were some clarity issues in the lead that I attempted to address so no need to go over what was accepted. The remaining portion of te lead needs some work.
 * In the lead we have this portion:
 * "Freedom from Want was published in the March 6, 1943, issue of The Saturday Evening Post with a corresponding essay by Carlos Bulosan as part of the Four Freedoms series.[2] The painting was included as the cover image of the 1946 book Norman Rockwell, Illustrator, written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator."[3] Although the image was popular in the United States it caused resentment in Europe where the masses were enduring hardship at the time. Drawing comparisons to John Steinbeck, Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad, and it thrust him into prominence."
 * The Bulosan material needs to stay together tightly in the lead as it has context and relevance, however it should not bookend other content or given undue connection or weight to the subject or the article.

<li>. </li> </ol>

:
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; </li> <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol>

:
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> The main issue I have is the article is not treating the subject as a notable piece of art. Missing is much of what an article about a "painting" would have. Is it on Canvas or board or wood? What, if any mixing or thinning mediums did he use? What was his style technique etc.. <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol>
 * The article only touches on the people in the painting as some being neighbors. Since these were real people and this history is relatively contemporary, I would think mention one or two of the models to be of high encyclopedic value and is important to cover in the article.
 * Added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No mention of the medium except in the lead (that the reviewer added). Rockwell normally painted in oils and appears that information is available for more detail including brands that exist today, which are of encyclopedic value when you consider that artists today will recognize that these paints are still available and that the artist use store bought paints, brushes etc. Also, I believe there should be more detail on the original sketch.
 * Can you point me to name brands and such.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the paints were Winsor Newton and Grumbacher mixing medium. Per Arthur L. Guptill in his book:"Norman Rockwell: Illustrator".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have the book in front of you. Can you provide me with text from the book and page numbers so that I can add cited text to the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not, however this reference is from an established expert in the field and is considered his official site. It may be used to source some facts on the methods and materials Rockwell used. Of interest is the detail explained about his painting method. It odd enough to be notable. He painted in layers of under paintings that were each varnished before the next layer went down. The brand of paint is mentioned as is his standard color palette. We can use that for the moment and wait for the full book reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From that source, it is not clear to me whether he used Winsor or Shiva paint. I'll pick up Illustrator from the Library in the next 55 hours. Chicago Public Library does not have a circulating copy of the other book (How I Make a Picture) that that site seems to rely on. I can take a look at the closed stacks version of it. There is also a new book out (American mirror : the life and art of Norman Rockwell) that CPL has in its closed stacks. I may run downtown today or tomorrow. There is a lot of reason to question whether that page describes the actual technique used on this specific painting. I am not so clear on the in situ procedure, but it seems different than the procedure discussed here. Similarly, the balopticon seems to go against the current findings for this work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear. He did use Shiva paint. There was a image of one painting confirmed to have been painted with that paint, but this image was painted after he had stopped using live models as well. Things change and I believe there are a few secondary sources that mention his technique of layering with varnish and how it was not good for the conservation of the paintings.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Before didn't you say a source said Winsor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Production. Rockwell painted from photographs. No mention of this. This leads one to believe Mr. Rockwell had a group over to his house and painted this from life. This needs to be cleared up. A photo may be available. Some of the original images are and if found, this one would be a great addition using NFCC.
 * He sketched this series for months. I have no indication that he sketched this series from paintings. At least one of them was just a neighborhood town hall meeting. I believe this series used live models rather than photographs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, but that's ok as the mention was added.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Over all the article really lacks focus as well as breadth of coverage. Too much seems to be about other subjects not directly a part of the image or painting. "Interpretations" is really "Reaction" or "Reception" and is written in Wikipedia's voice of authority as if all these claims are unquestionable fact. An interpretation requires attribution to that opinion like any other Wikipedia article. Something like this:" Although all four images were intended to promote patriotism in a time of war, Freedom from Want, which depicts an elderly couple serving a fat turkey to what looks like a table of happy and eager children and grandchildren, has given the idealized Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving work as important a place in the enduring marketplace of promoting family togetherness, peace and plenty as Hallmark at Christmas.". That is far too much to state as fact. It would be attributed to the author Linda Rosenkrantz.
 * "This painting depicts the common positive Rockwell themes of American prosperity and dependability for a generation who looked to Rockwell to appeal to their traditional values. This image of family life is an example of the regionalism and idealism that dominate Rockwell's work". Again, this is un-attributed opinion of the author, Amy Dempsey.
 * "The painting represents the theme of family continuity, virtue, homeliness and abundance without extravagance in a Puritan tone (as confirmed by water as the modest beverage choice)". Un-attributed opinion of Robert Hughes.
 * I have made some changes in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is about the painting not the essay. It is important to mention the essay and I think that it even deserves mention in the lead, but the article should not have a separate section devoted to the essay, that is simply undue weight. I line or two, maybe even three, but the size of the article, more than that is too much.
 * Bias. The lead contains mention of comparisons of the author of the essay to yet another author (which is the reaction from a critic) which is not of great importance or having much encyclopedic value to add in the lead...if at all. Such comparisons to John Steinbeck of another figure completely in the lead is inappropriate.
 * There were multiple independent WP:RS that related Bulosan to Steinbeck. It seems to be a very major point and thus was included in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that many have compared him to such, but this is kind of a BLP issue in that we are mentioning John Steinbeck as a comparison to Carlos Bulosan on the article about a painting by Norman Rockwell. Think that's stretching guidelines to start down that road. If you feel it is a defining characteristic and uniquely "American", I could see using the comparison in a more carefully crafted claim. Perhaps something along these lines:"The issue included a corresponding essay by novelist and poet, Carlos Bulosan of the same title. Considered one of the authors most notable works and compared to John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath". Then expand on that slightly uner the reactions section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Norman Rockwell Museum regards the painting as a Story illustration for The Saturday Evening Post. The essay is tantamount to this painting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, have you read the essay? That is simply not accurate. I have to challenge that. The painting does not illustrate the essay and the only link is that they appeared in the same issue of the magazine that was centering on the concept of "Freedom from Want". We have to separate this as a work of art as being notable enough to be "free standing" from the magazine issue and the other works that accompanied it as not be related to the work as that was out of the control of the artist. As I said, they need to be mentioned but not in a manner that gives undue weight. Without the Saturday Evening Post, this image may not exists, but the essay even being mentioned at all on the article is not a requirement to be broad in coverage. The essay and the image are not connected enough to have more than a mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To say that the painting is "free standing" is WP:OR on your part until you produce reliable enough sources to belie the Norman Rockwell Museum.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a painting. It is free standing and has nothing to do with the essay. The original research is your either misrepresentation of the Rockwell Museum or the misunderstanding of the source. At any rate, no...this painting is not an illustration of the essay from the Saturday Evening Post issue.
 * See the external link section of the article. I believe in order to say it is anything but a Story Illustration, you need a source to contradict the Norman Rockwell Museum.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have checked out 6 books from the library and took photos of key pages from 3 others on my blackberry. I have a source documenting that this is a story illustration. There was a Post editor who was in communication with Rockwell and convinced him not to make any further alterations so that it would go along with the essay as well as they had hoped/planned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, just to mention the section on the essay is like ten times the length of the Saturday Evening Post mention. I suggest the following compromise, create a subsection in the "Production" section for "Publication" where more detail about that issue in it's original printing is needed for broad coverage and add a much reduced mention of the essay and author with some context to the juxtaposition of the two pieces.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would propose the following counterproposal. Because of the WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/December 2013, which will keep me busy editing and reviewing most of this month, I have held off on nominating anything at WP:FAC, I am eying 4 different articles as future FACs. At this point, I think this article is one that has an FAC in its future. I think I mentioned that I have 7 current FAs at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. 4 are paintings (3 Lichtensteins &mdash; Look Mickey, Drowning Girl and Whaam! &mdash; and a Warhol &mdash; Campbell's Soup Cans), and 3 are Chicago sculptures. The regs at WP:WPVA are likely to come out and reshape the article to make it suitable for public consumption at WP:TFA as they have all of my FAs in the past. It may be the case, that they want to build up a more robust article. Currently the essay section is 2160 of 11169 characters of readable prose plus there is another 514 characters in the LEAD. So currently 2674 characters out of 11169 (nearly 24%) are about the essay. It would not surprise me to see this article double in size with the Essay section remaining near its current size. The current content in the essay section is the response to a very recent request from another editor to include this content. Thus, I am hesitant to remove it. I.e., I have one person who wants it in and another who wants it trimmed back. I would prefer to decide to trim it or leave it in a future discussion that will be attended by more respondents. If this article passes GA this month, before the end of next month it will either be at FAC, WP:PR and/or WP:MHR. In those fora, it is likely to be expanded in much the way it has been here at WP:GAC. Note that prior to this GAC, the article was 8850 characters of readable prose, 2557 of which was on the essay. Thus, under your guidance it has fallen from 29% of the article to 24%. Could we address the proportion of content dedicated to the essay when we have a better understanding of what the more final form of the article will be.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is what I will do. I will take some time to finish up all of my concerns and count this as simply the nominator disagreeing with the review assessment. Since it is unlikely that you will make the alterations I feel strongly are needed for focus, balance and neutrality I will not list the article. A note to you personally Tony, I don't feel you need to justify your qualifications to nominate this article, so I do hope you will not question my qualifications to review it. My interests and contributions lean strongly towards museums and galleries and the specific images that they house. As an artist myself, I have studied many different techniques and become very interested in writing about artists and their works. I cannot say that I have ever raised an article on art to GA or FA status but have contributed to many articles on art and antiquities so I am sure you will at least give me the good faith when trying to understand that when I review articles of even this nature for GA, it is with a goal of accomplishing that rating. However, I do not list articles that I feel are not within the GA criteria. Since we seem to be at odds with the content, I will finish up my review in the coming few days ( I am in no hurry) and hope that you will reconsider my review assessments and make the suggested changes. Without the changes, I am not comfortable listing the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will put this up at PR and MHR simultaneously after this review. This way, I can get multiple opinions. I am guessing that I will get lots of advice and the article will probably be over 15K by the time I finish both reviews. Eventually the current Essay content will be more in proportion, just by staying the length it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Understand that I am not just concerned about the size of content, but also that it is segregated into its own section and contains more background information than the article has on Rockwell...on top of my disagreement on the Rockwell museum consideration of the importance of the essay to the work, or the current interpretation and/or understanding of what is being stated. But I am going to look further into that. I have a great interest in Norman Rockwell actually and this painting and hope to work with you in the future on how to improve the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you still contest whether the painting is a story illustration after I have presented a WP:RS and have more coming, it is not likely we will agree on the propriety of story content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the most recent content additions clarify that a story illustration is an accurate statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that at 2160 + 418= 2578/14333 the essay is now 17.99% of the text (down from 28.89 when the review started).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, this is what the article says and the reference used for the claim:
 * The reference is the primary source, The Norman Rockwell Museum image page for the painting . All that has is a small description that reads: "Norman Rockwell (1894-1978), “Freedom from Want,” 1943. Oil on canvas, 45 ¾ x 35 ½”. Story illustration for “The Saturday Evening Post,” March 6, 1943. Norman Rockwell Museum Collections. ©1943 SEPS: Curtis Publishing, Indianapolis, IN." There is nothing that says "making the essay and this painting complementary works", just that it is a "story illustration"...period. Rockwell was a "Story Illustrator", like some people are "Landscape artists". His paintings themselves told a story, sometimes in more than a single painting. The entire series of painting is the "Story" that is being illustrated. Come on Tony, the primary source cannot be summarized like this. A secondary source has to claim it and then used to cite the information in the article and perhaps a convenience link to the primary source. But here that is simply original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources also describe it as a story illustration. I will add them as I get to them. In addition, please reread the current text regarding the need for the painting to go along with the text.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to comment it out until you can demonstrate a source ethat calls the painting an illustration of the essay by . I mean, it's a wonderful and extremely progressive piece for the time...what was it...1943? Here is a line from the essay you claim the artwork is illustrating:
 * This is one of the closing lines from the work, which is gritty hard, and about those struggling, not those well off and with abundant things like food or middle class, as depicted. The essay is about an underbelly of a society that struggles and labors and built a nation. Almost an underground culture is being described in the Carlos Bulosan writing.
 * I personally feel that you are pushing an image page caption as a reliable source and for all we know it was typed by an intern. It is ambiguous at best and at worst it simply does not mention the essay in any fashion. It is original research at this point and the source does not support the claim. You cannot add a primary source and claim that the primary source says something unless it is an attributed opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it as OR until it is sourced. You had it mentioned twice and I a sorry Tony, but you have clearly failed to demonstrate that this is an illustration of the essay.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, that I think about it, you are misinterpretting what a secondary source is. Throughout Wikipedia, we accept Museums as secondary sources regarding artwork, even from their own collection. What makes this different?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it as OR until it is sourced. You had it mentioned twice and I a sorry Tony, but you have clearly failed to demonstrate that this is an illustration of the essay.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, that I think about it, you are misinterpretting what a secondary source is. Throughout Wikipedia, we accept Museums as secondary sources regarding artwork, even from their own collection. What makes this different?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Representing the subject fairly. I tend to think that an article about a painting should be about the painting, otherwise it may not be as important to have a stand alone article for it, especially if we already have an article for the full series.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

:
<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> <li>. </li>


 * Symbol unsupport vote.svg Not listed at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Too many issues to be listed at this time. Nominator is encouraged to renominate when as many issues have been fixed as possible under the nominators opinion. We don't agree right ow on many aspects of the article that seem to be original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments
I had a message to say that I was mentioned in the context of this article, and I haven't found where or what, but I'm leaving a comment anyway.

A lot of the expression is rather convoluted. Some of the sentences have bits in the wrong order so that they don't say exactly what is intended.
 * However, the painting was also part of a deliberative visual expression of Roosevelt's broad overarching freedoms on canvas. 
 * I haven't got the faintest clue what "deliberative" means in the context of this sentence. I would say, from what I read in the cited article, that Rockwell's process was the exact opposite, not "deliberative" at all. He gave up on "deliberation" and simply painted an iconic object and iconic moment.   Should this sentence read "the painting was also part of a deliberate visual expression of Roosevelt's broad overarching freedoms...."?


 * Same sentence: "of Roosevelt's broad overarching freedoms on canvas"
 * The freedoms were not on canvas. The visual expression was on canvas.


 * Until then, Freedom from Want was not a commonly understood and accepted universal freedom before its presentation.
 * "before its presentation" is probably redundant, but if it is going to be in the sentence, then it has to be integrated, not tacked on the end.
 * Can you say "Before the presentation of the speech, Freedom from Want was not etc etc..."?
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do agree with much of what you say here and agree that some of the writing could be a bit more clear o more direct. Thanks for the additional input.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)