Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC) [//en.wikipedia.org/?diff=601651066].

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an important painting series of works that served as illustrations for a series of essays in response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt human rights declaration, Four Freedoms. This will soon hopefully be a part of a WP:GT (pending the outcome of Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1‎ and a successful WP:GTC).TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm a bit confused. Some of the issues from the prior nomination have not been resolved, what first came to mind were the sources identified as non-reliable. That was some time ago, though, has there been a change in opinion since then? I'm wondering how it was made a "Good article" based upon the comments. I don't mean to be discouraging, though, it would be great to have this made a featured article, it's an iconic work and one of my favorites.--22:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs)
 * When I nominated this, I was a bit surprised to see archive2. I had forgotten about the 2008 nomination. I have done so much to improve the article since then, I did not look at specifics from that nomination. I'm looking at the refs. Aside from that did you see significant lingering issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see much. Encarta is still hanging around... and I scanned the rest of the reference and nothing popped out at me, but I didn't hover to see if some of the questioned sources were removed (home schooling, etc.). The only thing that threw me off in a read-through was the number of sentences in the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) section before getting into review of the Four Freedoms works. I wasn't quite sure how the lone sentence about Roosevelt's death fit in. The article has a lot of detail, some of which I'm inclined to put in notes, but I think that's a personal style issue.
 * I still have a few more refs to improve.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Over all, I really like the article... it harkens back to a family story about the reception of the Four Freedoms broadcast and gave them hope. There will be better editors to come along and add their two cents, but I like it... and just have a couple of potential tweaks (Encarta, check for any more borderline sources, consider the initial sentences in the Critical review section).-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Usually, if I get close to FA status with a WP:WPVA article those guys come by and make sure it presents things correctly. I just don't know how close I am.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope what ideas I've shared help some. I will say that it was a very moving story and I was impressed how you kept an encyclopedic tone, but you used quotes to further the "story"... I found it very engaging and interesting. I'm sure someone else will pipe in soon. If not, you might want to just ping a reminder on the Visual arts project page in a day or so. There's some great people there, they just might be tied up at the moment.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 04:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ColonelHenry

 * An excellent read, so I'm very happy to SUPPORT this article. Images seem appropriately tagged, and the text satisfies the criteria for prose quality, comprehensiveness and verifiability. One comment regarding citations...there are citations in the lede for material that appears to be adequately cited in the body. Since I don't see how this subject is complex, current, or controversial where such information seemingly adequately sourced in the body would be challenged, are these really necessary per WP:LEADCITE?--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. In truth, since either fully cited or fully uncited is acceptable, I have no preference. It would just be a matter of doing the work to switch from one way to the other if there is a strong preference. It is perfectly acceptable to cite information the first time it is presented even if it is in the LEAD. I am really waiting for the WP:WPVA regs to muster the energy to use their heavy hands on this. I have never had an article from their project get passed without a lot of strong opinions on necessary changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

 * Support. Note: I was GA Reviewer for one of this article's subsidiaries, Freedom of Speech (painting). This article has high encyclopedic value. It is most educational. The article is meticulously sourced throughout. I would recommend making a 4th paragraph in the lede, just make a paragraph break starting from Critical review of these images, like most of Rockwell's work.... Two redlinks, at Enigma Books and The Norman Rockwell Museum. Not necessary for FA, of course, but it'd be nice to see those as sourced articles at some point. Great job overall, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4th paragraph split out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, looks a bit better! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Norman Rockwell Museum exist. It was just a copyedit necessary to eliminate one redlink. Should I delink the other?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that editorial discretion up to you. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt
Comments. Very good work, though some of these might well have been caught prior to the FAC. I should add that I am a Rockwell admirer, and Freedom of Speech is one of several Rockwell works from the Post I have hanging in my home (the covers or pages, that is), and I also have a set of the posters in the War Bonds envelope. And I've been to the museum. Note that I am working offline on this from a version of the article downloaded on Monday, apologies for any out-of-date comments. (moved to talk, most or all were resolved) Support, what's left is trivial. Fine account of these well-known works.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I would break off the paragraph after the quote, and delete the word "Nonetheless," which I don't quite see the reason for.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "There was also significant turmoil in the OWI …" I think this discussion should be merged into the discussion of the OWI resignations, above, as it explains it.
 * I put it in a separate but subsequent paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did mean change the title of the section to "Creation".
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you it is a redundancy to have the publication at the start and at the end. I would have it all at the end.  There is no need to mention the eventual publication at the start of the section.  Sorry about the confusion/indecision.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it sort of a basic introductory fact to say that these were illustrations published in The Post. I think it should be very early.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for spending time on this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No trouble. Sorry to be so disjointed.Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from HectorMoffet

 * I'm not a regular here, so take my support with a grain of salt, but I just wanted to drop a note thanking the authors for an excellent and highly polished read.  I learned alot nothing jumped out at me as problematic. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Figureskatingfan
Very fine and interesting article. I agree with Wehwalt; this article should have been further along before it was submitted to FAC. Ah well, I learned a lot.
 * Keep in mind that I tried to get advice at Peer review/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive1, but there were no takers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt's speech
 * This single paragraph is a little long; perhaps you should break it after "freedom from fear".
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I.e., FDR's speech was known for "identifying the objectives of the war and revealing his hopeful view of the postwar world."Although it's technically correct, it's not standard to start a sentence with "i.e." I'll leave it up to you to change it.
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Domestically, the Four Freedoms were not something the Roosevelt was able to achiever through simple legislation, but they did provide a theme for American military participation in the war. "The" and "achiever" are misspellings. I also personally don't like the phrase "but they did"; I suggest, which you can ignore if you disagree: "Domestically, the Four Freedoms were not something Roosevelt was able to achieve through simple legislation, although they provided a theme for American military participation in the war."
 * You must be working from an old version because some of these issues have already been handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Rockwell and World War II


 * Is there a reason why Lorimer restricted Rockwell?
 * Here is the source:"Under Lorimer's avowals of isolationism, he had felt restricted from indulging his own passions...uncomfortable to go up against Lorimer's beliefs." What changes do you think are appropriate?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Production
 * They measured 45.75 inches (116.2 cm) × 35.5 inches (90 cm) except Freedom of Worship which measures 46.0 inches (116.8 cm) × 35.5 inches (90 cm).[1] The two uses of "measure" should have parallel tenses.  Again, it's up to you which one to use.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For all of his paintings, Rockwell used live models.[35] In 1935, Rockwell began using (exclusively black-and-white)[36] photography extensively, although he did not publicly reveal he did so until 1940.[37] This is a little unclear to me.  I assume that it means that Rockwell photographed his models and painted from the pictures.  If so, I think you should make that clearer.  Why is the parenthetical used here?  If you have a good reason for it, please retain it.
 * Parenthesis removed and clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rockwell was soon joined in Arlington by artists John Atherton, Mead Schaeffer and George Hughes. I assume that these artists joined the community after Rockwell. Do we know exactly when?
 * Source is silent (only uses the word soon).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The resident artists, Rockwell included, chose to depend upon the local citizens to perform as their amateur models.[36] Too wordy.  How about: "The resident artists, Rockwell included, hired local citizens as their amateur models."
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He had endured a divorce and run with fast crowds in New Rochelle.[38] I think you could use more encyclopedic language here: "He had recently gone through a divorce [can you state exactly when this happened?] and had "run with fast crowds" in New Rochelle."  I used the quotes because I'm not sure what the phrase means.  If the source explains, I suggest that you use plainer language here, too.
 * I am confused here. Why is "gone through" more encyclopedic than "endured"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not detail the divorce.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is odd that googling "run with fast crowd" and "run with fast crowds" give such different results. I will rephrase to make this more googleable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Using photography and Arlington residents as models, Rockwell was able to capture what he referred to as "human-looking humans" who were generally working-class people in an hour or so rather than hire professional models for the entire day.[39] If you explain the photograph and models as I request above, this is clear, but if you don't, it's not.  It's also a little wordy for me, and I'm not sure if Rockwell only used the models for a few hours or if it only took him a few hours to paint them.  Please re-word.
 * Is it clear enough now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Post was rumored to be in trouble in 1942. What do you mean; what kind of trouble?
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6th paragraph: I'm not sure that the description of the town meeting belong with the content in the rest of the paragraph. I wonder if it better belongs somewhere else.  The transitions in this paragraph are a little weak, so I suggest you either move some of the content elsewhere or connect the ideas better.
 * In meeting with Patterson, he was unable to hold his attention. He moved on to the new Office of War Information (OWI), where he was told "The last war you illustrators did the posters. This war we're going to use fine artists men, real artists." I think it'd be clearer if you said, "He was unable to hold Patterson's attention during their meeting, so he met with the new..."  Is the quote ("fine artists men") accurate?
 * Yes the quote is in several sources. I added a second source here because you are not the first person to ask about this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At about the same time, the OWI began showing signs of renewed interest. This came despite OWI Graphics Division chief, Francis Brennan's outrage. Why was Brennan outraged?  How about tightening this up: "At about the same time, despite its Graphics Division chief, Francis Brennan's outrage, the OWI began showing signs of renewed interest."
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the town meeting description better fits with the paragraph starting Models included...?
 * No the town meeting was his inspiration. He was inspired, then sketched, then traveled to Washington to be turned down, stopped off in Philadelphia and got commissioned, then came back home and hired models. The inspiration stuff does not belong with this model stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time, the three government propaganda agencies were disjointed, and they were not unified under the OWI until June 13, 1942 by a Presidential Executive Order. Seems a little repetitious. How about: "At the time, the three government propaganda agencies were disjointed, until they were unified under the OWI on June 13, 1942 by a Presidential Executive Order."
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the writers division, led by MacLeish, was under pressure for failing to deliver a message intelligible to people of varying intelligence. There was also significant turmoil in the OWI because a faction had supported work by Ben Shahn, but Shahn's work would not be used extensively for propaganda because it lacked general appeal. I don't understand what the first sentence means; I wonder if you could just say that the message was not accessible enough for all their readers.  "Significant" is a weasel-word; I'd just omit it.  Or you could change the sentence like this: "Ben Shahn's work for the OWI, which was eventually rejected because it lacked general appeal, was controversial within the agency."
 * I contemplated a change to "Ben Shahn's work for the OWI, which despite internal support was used modestly because it lacked general appeal, was controversial within the agency."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Significant removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that this section has already been split and moved around in response to another editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There were several artists who were commissioned to promote the war: Jean Carlu, Gerard Hordyke, Hugo Ballin and Walter Russell were among those commissioned. The final phrase ("were among those commissioned") seems repetitious.  Are you saying that there were other artists commissioned?  If so, how about: "There were several artists who were commissioned to promote the war, including Jean Carlu, Gerard Hordyke, Hugo Ballin and Walter Russell."  If not, you could just remove the phrase.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When was the Four Freedoms monument dedicated?
 * Its own article is not even clear on that. I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath
 * Rockwell's version of the story is that only after the public demanded reprints did the Office of War Information get involved by producing 2.5 million sets of Four Freedoms posters, I think you could still abbreviate the OWI here; watch your typos.  How about: "According to Rockwell, the OWI got involved and produced 2.5 million sets of Four Freedoms posters only after the public demanded reprints."
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we know who the artist who created the Feb. 12 stamps is? If not, no worries.
 * Don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

War Bond Drive
 * Should "war" in "war Bonds" in the first sentence be capitalized, or should "Bonds" be lower case?
 * I think they are both suppose to be lower case unless you are talking about the title of the War Bond Drive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph is too long. How about: "The government used several forms of solicitation, advertising and marketing, such as aircraft carrier exhibits.  For the Seventh War Loan Drive, they used direct appeals from all five-star generals and admirals (George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Jackson D. Arnold, Ernest King, Chester W. Nimitz and William D. Leahy), and used a commemorative bond image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Eighth War Loan Drive."
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rockwell was present at the debut to be paraded about in front of ambassadors and dignitaries and sign autographs. "Paraded about" seems a little negative; if that's what the source uses, I suggest using quotes. I also suggest a re-structure, like this: "Rockwell, who was "paraded about" in front of ambassadors and dignitaries and signed autographs, was present at the debut."
 * How is it now?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4th sentence, 5th paragraph: "gallant festivities" is peacocky to me.
 * gallant --> celebratory.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception
 * Great section; the only complaint is that you sometimes don't include a comma before quotes that contain the word "said". I recognize that's a stylistic preference, so do with this as you wish.
 * Being that this is a stylistic preference that I don't understand, I will leave it alone, ib you feel it is acceptable as is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Provenance
 * You already state when Rockwell died; do you need to say it again here?
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Four Freedoms remain in the collection of the Museum. In this paragraph, you italicize "Four Freedoms", which isn't consistent throughout the article? Is it accurate to italicize works of art?  If so, I suggest that you correct this.  Shouldn't you add, "As of [year]"?
 * I italicize the Rockwell series, but I do not italicize the Roosevelt platitudes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In 2011, the Four Freedoms were sent to the Williamstown Art Conservation Center for conservation work to reduce exposure to various elements. The treatment also reduces wear. How about: In 2011, the Williamstown Art Conservation Center did some work on the Four Freedoms, including reducing exposure to various elements and preventing further wear."
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Exhibitions
 * It starts with Roosevelt's inspiration for the painting series and their publication. Then it describes the tour, which began at Hecht's in Washington, D.C. with Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas speaking. This is the first time you talk about Douglas "speaking".  Did he speak at the Hecht opening?  If so, you should mention it before, when you first talk about the tour, and if the book emphasizes it, you should mention that here.
 * I added that in my early days. I don't view that content as being WP:RSed, now. I have removed it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Finished with review for now. Sorry it took me so long to get around to it after your request that I review it. I think that you need to solicit more reviews, more than the cursory supports you've received thus far, especially of this article's prose, which could be tightened up somewhat. I won't review the sources, since others have already done that and because they all look like they're from solid and reliable publications. Nice job thus far. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm now prepared to Support this article. All the issues I raised, as well as the other reviewers' issues, have been addressed to my satisfaction. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose from SandyGeorgia
Oppose based on the length of the issues found by Christine, and because this article was brought to FAC ill-prepared, without correcting issues from previous nominations, and should have been removed by delegates per the instructions so that it could be correctly prepared for FAC. Although Christine's list is exhaustive enough to illustrate the level of problems and why the FAC should have been closed per FAC instructions, picking a random section in the middle of the article, the first few sentences one finds in the "Production" section have a punctuation error and convoluted prose (and, except for the infobox, it's the first time we encounter a list of what the four paintings are ... well into the article ... indicating the lead needs work):
 * Your statements are misleading to the point of being inflamatory on many levels.
 * First, the article went through significant improvement since the last FAC. It was even beefed up from 17,459 characters of readable prose to 31,220 along the way.
 * Second, I sought a WP:PR that went unaddressed as you can see here. Don't make it sound like I didn't try to improve it before coming here.
 * Third, you are making it seem like Christine's (User:Figureskatingfan) usual attention to detail casts aspersions on this candidacy. She has been quite involved in some of my prior successful FAC with much longer lists of concerns. Two are from 2013. Check in at Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5. At Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1, she responded after an exhausting PR. The fact that she decided to dig into this one is probably more of a good sign than a bad one. She has been instrumental in refining my research to the proper level for promotion in the past with extensive commentary along the way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rockwell's Four Freedoms Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear were first published on February 20, February 27, March 6 and March 13, 1943 along with commissioned essays from leading American writers and historians (Booth Tarkington, Will Durant, Carlos Bulosan, and Stephen Vincent Benét, respectively).

Continuing on in that section, off-topic information emerges:
 * Thanks for the pointer regarding the painting names early in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In 1939, Rockwell moved to Arlington, Vermont, which was an artist-friendly community that had hosted Robert Frost, Rockwell Kent and Dorothy Canfield Fisher.

And then we start getting a lot of information about Rockwell himself that is never tied to the paintings. So, I skipped down to the next section, Aftermath, where I again find basic punctuation errors and grammatical issues:
 * I don't understand why it is boggling and off-topic to you that an artist would move to a community of artists. If he did so in the years before doing a notable work, it is somewhat notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon publication The Saturday Evening Post received millions of reprint requests. The Post produced 25,000 sets, including both the essays and full-color reproductions of the paintings, which The Post sold at cost for $0.25 ($0 in 2024 dollars). Rockwell's version of the story is that only after the public demanded reprints did the Office of War Information get involved by producing 2.5 million sets of Four Freedoms posters, By the end of the war, 4 million posters had been printed. Both the Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want posters had the leading caption "ours. . .to fight for" and the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship had the leading caption "Buy War Bonds" and the word "Save" before the respective freedom.

"Upon" publication? Or after? The Post three times in two sentences? Why the sudden switch to something about the Office of War? Transition or explanation needed. A sentence ending in a comma. This article is not prepared, it seems to be a hurried nomination, and it's unclear why it is getting support. My experience with TonyTheTiger's noms is that he will fix the things mentioned, and then wait for reviewers to point out the next set, so I point out that this is only a sample and I have no intentions in engaging in an exhaustive back-and-forth to get the prose brought up to snuff that is typical of TTT's nominations. I suggest source checking will be needed as well, as it is apparent the article hasn't been checked over since its 2008 failed nom. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarified the upon, swapped out the comma, replaced one The Post.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, of my seven FA-Class visual arts articles three are sculptures and four are paintings or painting series. The painting series have been able to get the attention of the WP:WPVA regs who have taken a lot of time to clean things up or direct me to do it. I continue to hope that, , or  will step in and start refining my research.  was leaning toward suggesting significant rearrangement, but backed off of that directive before giving support. I was going to start with some of his ideas if the WPVA cavalry did not arrive but was addressing his other concerns in the interim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Going on the record: It's true that I've reviewed other articles managed by Tony, and it's also true that my reviews (even my GACs) tend to be long and picky, mostly because I'm obsessive and because I sincerely want to help other editors. Tony, you must admit that this article was ill-equipped for FAC, which annoyed me a bit, but I went ahead because we've helped each other in the past.  You also know that if you asked me to PR it, I would have, which would've better prepared you for FAC.  I'd bet if you asked anyone else, you probably would've been helped.  Sandy has a good point: please don't bring an article to any review forum on WP before it's properly prepared.  But Sandy, how is the length and comprehensiveness of my review any different than a lot of FACs?  I was just following the example of what I've seen here in the past. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I should also state that the vast majority of my Millennium Park WP:FT FAs are the result of editorial assistance that was largely rearranging presentation by . So it is not unusual for me to have my FAs get largely rearranged before passing. Most people here know I am more of a researcher than a writer. Maybe I should stick to basketball where chronology is so simple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. I also have major weaknesses in certain areas, like assessing images, so I go to others who are stronger than I am in those areas and get their help before submitting the articles I work on to FAC.  All my articles go through GAC before coming here, and based upon the advice of my fellows, I submit them to PR or the GOCE first, if necessary.  I hate long, drawn-out, painful reviews, so my personal goal is to get them passed to the next level with flying colors, with ease and comfort for all.  The more preparation, the better.  It respects the FAC process by doing so, and makes for better articles in the long run.  IOW, the more critical eyes on an article, the better.  There are plenty of people around here that will fill in the areas in which you have deficits; all you have to do is ask--before coming to FAC (or even GAC, for that matter). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This passed GAC before the first FAC in 2008. I have since doubled the article in size. Neither that GAC nor that FAC is really relevant in whether this article was prepared for FAC. I tried multiple venues for additional review. I was denied review at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_123 and the PR went unreviewed as noted above. I have never had much luck with GOCE. I gave it a good try in terms of finding another review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Image review from Crisco 1492

 * Images for the most part look okay. However, is there a reason why Freedom from Want is about 4 times as big as the other FU images? And how exactly is File:Freedom From Fear.jpg free if the painting itself is still copyrighted? By licensing the image, they did not obtain the copyright to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At one point, I resourced the File:Freedom From Want.jpg to a larger version from 119 pixels wide to 353. I never did so with the others. I am now actually unsure what the source of the current version of the image is. I just thought we needed something bigger than 119 pixels wide because I considered it a future WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have swapped out File:Freedom From Fear.jpg at Freedom From Fear (painting).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't cropping the posters work? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From which source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought all of them had been uploaded (or, at least, I thought I saw them in a category). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just swapped all the images with images straight from the Norman Rockwell Museum. You should probably recheck.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, the size of the Fair-Use images is good. Still not sure of the poster version of Freedom From Fear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

 * Equivalent modern prices have been generated in this article using the CPI index. The CPI index uses a basket of consumer prices for typical consumer goods and services, and is only reliable as a conversion method for the prices of such goods or services (i.e. it is reliable at comparing the relative price of beer in 1941 and 2014; it isn't reliable for comparing the price of a battleship or a road network). This is one of the reasons why the CPI template on the Wiki notes that it is OR to use it for other purposes. Two of the uses in this article are fine, but its use to convert $13 billion of government funding to a modern equivalent isn't appropriate. There are other indexes (e.g. share of GDP; share of GDP per capita) which are more reliable for converting large sums, particularly those relating to government debt. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you offer more instruction on correcting this conversion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There a few methods and sources of stats out there; I've found this site relatively easy to use. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Worth checking the tense on some sentences with older sources. Examples include:
 * "Some say that Rockwell's Four Freedoms lack artistic maturity. Others point to the universality of the Freedom of Religion as disconcerting to practitioners of particular faiths". Given that this from 1943, I'd have expected "Some said... Others pointed to..." - it is 70 years ago, and these are comments immediately after the pictures' relese.
 * I have tried Some have said...others have pointed to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The commercial success of the series is in part because each painting is considered to be a model of understandable art by the general public" - again, given that this is from 1948, it feels like it should be in the past tense; this may well no longer hold true in the 21st century. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed the commercial success to past tense because these posters are no longer big sellers, but I don't think the art is any less understandable now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)
 * MeasuringWorth is a good site, but personally, I wouldn't try to convert the large dollar amounts, there's too much disagreement on and off Wikipedia over conversions of this type. (This is partially in response to Hchc's comment.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "sales drives raised over $132 million in the sale of war bonds": I don't have a preference how to eliminate the repetition; one thing that works is: "sales drives of war bonds raised over $132 million".
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "a touring exhibition sponsored by The Post and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The touring exhibition": Same here, there are various ways to eliminate the repetition; at a minimum, delete the second "touring".
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "During the speech Roosevelt identified four essential human rights—Freedom of Speech ...": Thoughts aren't generally proper nouns.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Four Freedoms theme": My first impulse was: since themes aren't usually proper nouns, but the subject of this article is a proper noun, capitalizing it here suggests you're talking about the theme of the painting ... misleading the reader for a little bit. But there's more work to do here, so see the next point instead.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Four Freedoms theme was derived from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's January 1941 State of the Union Address. During the speech Roosevelt identified four essential human rights—Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear—that should be universally protected. The theme was incorporated into the Atlantic Charter, and it became part of the charter of the United Nations.": Since you've just named those 4 freedoms, word for word, in the previous paragraph and in the first image, I think this counts as unnecessary repetition. I'd go with: "The four freedoms named in the paintings came from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's January 1941 State of the Union Address. ..."
 * Shortened, but not as much as you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're in agreement, the ellipses meant that I expected more to follow. Perhaps I was being too ... elliptical. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's more to do here than I have time for, now that I'm cutting back on copyediting to do some writing, so I'll stop there. Best of luck. Since you're taking some heat above, I'll add: this isn't a slap, I'm just operating within the constraints as I understand them. Different reviewers will define "repetition" differently; my definition is my own, but it's based on copyediting comments I've seen on Wikipedia, and on standard style guides. It's generally not that difficult to spot, or to fix. I'm not going to tell you you should have handled it already, but on the other hand, I can only do so much. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Request Can this be held open for a bit; I think it will do, would like to but cant make a pass for a few days. Ceoil (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources review

 * The links in refs 6 and 15 go to the same source; why not combine them?
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 27 lacks source info
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 42 appears to be broken – please check
 * Works fine for me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 65 requires subscription
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Refs 85, 86, 87 and 88  all require subscription
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 93 lacks source info
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 103 requires subscription
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 106 requires subscription
 * Fixed--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Refs 108 and 109 require subscription
 * Fixed--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 111 appears to be the same sources as ref 9
 * Merged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 119 seems an odd choice of source for this information
 * Well it is a publication with an editorial process. I think it passes as a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 120 requires registration or subscription
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources appear to be of appropriate quality & reliability, and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.