Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1


 * 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 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014.

Freedom from Want (painting)

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the four paintings in a famous painting series by Norman Rockwell. It has sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic content to merit consideration here. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have notified WP:HUMAN RIGHTS, WP:VISUALARTS, WP:HOLIDAY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have notified the GA2 reviewer .--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment leaning support. I did do the GA and gave it a strong going over then. I own a set of the war bond reproduction and spent some time gazing at this one (masterly) before re-reading the article. Very well done. A few minor comments:
 * My spellcheck says "advisment" is misspelled.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "relied on neighbors for advice as well as critical commentary in addition to their service as his models" too much added on, a sentence should not have "as well as" followed by "in addition to".
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "received filled 25,000 orders" either or both?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one sentence in "Reactions" that deals with European reaction. I would insert that into the second paragraph where this is discussed in greater detail.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "It propounded the discussion of rights of citizens who should bear the allegiance to the democracy" I'm not quite certain what this means.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The source says that by pairing the Essay with this painting "the editors of the Saturday Evening Post were illustrating the necessity of the reciprocal relationship between the liberal democratic state and its citizens. The state was obligated to provide a minimal level of subsistence for all of its citizens if all of its citizens were to owe the state the duties and obligations of loyalty, allegiance, identification and, ultimately, self-sacrifice." (page 212)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like "It made it clear that while citizens had obligations to the state, the state had an obligation to them to provide a basic level of subsistence."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
 * I made one tweak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by artist and illustrator Norman Rockwell: isn't an illustrator an artist? Why not just by artist Norman Rockwell or by American artist Norman Rockwell?
 * I chose the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Having been partially created on Thanksgiving 1942, it has become an iconic representation of the Thanksgiving holiday: is it iconic because it was partially painted on Thanksgiving, or because it appears to be a Thanksgiving scene? I'd've thought the latter.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been widely imitated and parodied. is redundant with the following sentence.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * were enduring hardship at the time: should be obvious, but you might want to explicate what hardship you're talking about.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Freedom from Want was published with a...'': shouldn't this go with the other publication information in the second paragraph?
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The illustration is an oil on canvas: I feel like it should read "oil painting on canvas", even though that should be obvious
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * not actually eating because the painting depicts emptiness: the concept of "emptiness"? If so, in what way?
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition there is a covered silver serving dish that would traditionally hold potatoes, according to one source.: this is awkward, in that we've just jumped from the table to the curtains and back again. Also, we should be naming the "once source".
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * However, another source describes this as a covered casserole dish.: and the "other source"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The table is the central element of the painting. Then this should probably be stated before the table settings and curtains.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * use fine artists men, real artists: is there a comma or something missing here? Can yu double-check the quote?
 * Grammatically, there should be commas after the word war in each sentence, but as you can see in the online source, the commas don't exist in the quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In mid-November, Hibbs wrote Rockwell pleading that he not scrap his third work in order to start over.: this jumps out suddenly---probably best to explain what would cause him to want to scrap it before having Hibbs try to stop him.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * soon under the advisement: is "advisement" really the word you want here?
 * changed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * the magazine was soon going to place restrictions on four-color printing, so Rockwell had better get the work published before being relegated to halftone printing: the reader likely won't know why the magazine would do this
 * If you are talking about placing restrictions on four-color printing, I don't know why and we don't need to know why here. I presume it has something to do with cost efficiency or technological advancement. I don't need to know which and neither does the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the reason almost certainly has to do with wartime rationing, which is important in the context. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As much WP:OR as my 2 possible reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be OR if I were telling you to add it without a source. I'm asking you to check the sources.  If it does have something to do with the war (which it almost certainly does), then that's important in the context; if it's not, then that should be made clear, as many readers would assume it (as I would) as it was common at the time. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded this point as much as the source will permit. The source says the government was forcing the change, but does not clarify whether this was part of the military strategy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's much better than it was. If you ever happen to come across a history of th emagazine at the library or something that specifies it was rationing, it would be a good idea to add that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim Martin appears in each painting in the series: who's Martin, and is he the only one who appears in each paintig?
 * Isn't it clear that he is an Arlington neighbor. He is the only one that we have a source for appearing in each image. Also since some of the works only have 2 or 3 subjects, there can't be too many people who are in them all.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It only becomes clear when he's named again shortly after; I'd suggest putting this after that, then. Is it the source that says he was the only one who appeared in all four? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟
 * I have fixed the link for that WP:IC. However, you still need to have a Time subscription to read it in its entirety. I am unable to confirm what the source says at this time. I sourced this before this content was behind a paywall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * as Hallmark at Christmas, according to Linda Rosenkrantz: maybe this would be better as a quote; I don't think "as Hallmark at Christmas" is vey encyclopaedic.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * associated with Regionalism: should explicate that REgionalism is an art movement; otherwise it might appear as, say, a political thing.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * perceived as a depiction of American overabundance.: somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence; perhaps combine them somehow?
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * that is described as coy: who descrives it so?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * overall I find the "Reactions" section kind of repetitive; ideas mentioned once are brought up in later paragraphs again. It would be best if you could go through this section and reorganize it.
 * helped out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * catch as catch can manner: too informal for an encyclopaedia
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator.": why is this quoted rather than paraphrased?
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad: this doesn't have sufficient context for it to make sense---which hardships are "the" hardships? Also, the home vs abroad thing was a criticisim, rather than an aspect of the essay, right?  I might shorten it to something like "Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring domestic wartime socioeconomic hardships".
 * a special occasion for "sharing what we have with those we love": attribution?
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rockwell's work came to be categorized within art movements and styles such as Regionalism and American scene painting. It sometimes displays an idealized vision of America's rural and agricultural past.: Is the "idealized vision of America's rural and agricultural past" an aspect of Regionalism and American scene painting, or are these independent statements?
 * The IC includes a quote in this case. Let me know if there is still an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That would probably be better as a footnote, then, wouldn't it? The note's longer than the on footnote you do have, and I doubt many would think to click through to the IC to see that (I sure didn't). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I'm ready to support (although I'd still like to see something done about that note). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Tezero
The album one's fine, and the one of Norman Rockwell is free. I am, however, concerned about the FUR for File:Freedom from Want.jpg; two categories are simply given "n.a.", while "Purpose of use in article" and "Minimal use" could use a bit of beefing up, the latter category not even ending with a period. I'll watch this FAC; alternately, you can ping me when this has been fixed. Tezero (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FUR now beefed up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Image review passes. Source review and one more support still needed. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prhartcom
Support. The few issues I found were quickly fixed and I heartily support this article for FA. Below are my comments. As requested, I have struck those comments that have been fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings to you,. I have just read the president's speech that inspired this painting as well as the Four Freedoms article, and feel ready to review this article. *I'll start with a complement: "Until then, Freedom from Want was not a commonly understood or accepted universal freedom" is a powerful sentence that really hooks the reader into reading more. *Which do you like better: The passive "Freedom from Want was published with a corresponding essay" or the active "The Post published Freedom from Want with a corresponding essay" ? ***Great; by the way, I wasn't being sarcastic, sorry if it sounded that way, I meant to sincerely ask is it worth stating the facts in a passive way in order to accentuate the object rather than the subject, as maybe the subject (The Post) is entirely unimportant. It actually could be (e.g., for the first couple of passive sentences still in the lead, the unmentioned object is unimportant so the passive voice is quite worth it.) If, however, the subject is as important as the object, than by all means use the active; your fix is correct. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC) *"rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad" sounds important, but if it were cut, it would greatly strengthen the sentence's main idea, which is "Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically and it thrust him into prominence". Perhaps convert the cut passage into an introductory phrase (e.g. "Despite ...") which would add counterpoint to that main idea. *Notice that every main idea presented in the lead is executed in a single sentence, with the exception of the description of Bulosan's essay, which takes two. While I was reading the lead I half-expected that second sentence to be the start of a different topic, then found out it wouldn't be. If you'd like to have that consistency, perhaps an expertly applied conjunction or semicolon and a few cut phrases (e.g. "as part of the Four Freedoms series") will do it. You could combine the solution to the point above with this solution. * "emptiness" = "the themes of Puritan origins of Thanksgiving." Really? I would like to know more as I never considered that, but no reason is given to equate the two. Perhaps only a small hint or reminder could be added? * "'The last war you ...'" This quote, I assume, is cited in Fischer 2004? I ask because there is no citation after it but there is one in the next sentence. Consider adding a reference footnote directly following the quote, since it's a quote, after all. I think a comma is needed between "war" and "you" (it's okay to punctuate someone's quote). * "Hibbs alleviated Rockwell's thematic concern. He noted ..." Perhaps combine the two sentences, which are on the same topic, with a semicolon. "Noted" could be changed to a more accurate verb, such as "explained" or "reasoned". * "pressured Rockwell into completing his work soon after warning him that the magazine was soon ..." I think you see the problem, right? A comma is needed in a strategic location (either between "work" and "soon" or between "soon" and "after"; I can't tell if you are using the phrase "soon after ..."). Consider another word for the second "soon" to avoid the redundancy; e.g. instead of "soon going to be", perhaps "about to be". * "relied on neighbors for advice, critical commentary and their service as his models." Oh dang, you prefer not to use the Oxford comma in a list (which would be: "1, 2, and 3" instead of "1, 2 and 3"). Your choice, but I always use it (because I don't want to imply a relationship between list items "2" and "3"). * "Jim Martin appears in each painting in the series." Really, why? Does the source say? It's obviously an interesting bit of trivia but it leaves us wanting an explanation. * "Rockwell lived in Stockbridge, Massachusetts ..." Nice to know, but we shouldn't say it; it's just stuck in there next to a detailed examination of the painting's production. We go from the painting directly to the related topic of its eventual home to that topic's related topic of Rockwell's home; of the three, the third is in no way related to the first, which was the main topic of the paragraph. Perhaps there is another, better place for this third fact. The last sentence of a section should should be a nice finish, ideally with some emotional impact (especially in a FA). * Another complement: The entire first two paragraphs and the last three paragraphs of Reactions is wonderfully well-written. I got chills reading how well the painting was received. No issues here. * "Richard Halpern says ..." since what he says is in contrast to what those dreary, starving Europeans said, perhaps a more accurate verb is needed here (or a "However") to signal to the reader that they are about to read a contrasting position. * "empty plates and white dishes on white linen ... Rockwell may have been invoking the Puritan origins of the Thanksgiving holiday." There it is again. We just said all this earlier, and not in the summarizing lead. Do you reconcile a good reason for mentioning the same thing in two different paragraphs? It seems odd to me, and until I hear your reason, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't. * "no one appears to be giving thanks in a traditional manner at the Thanksgiving dinner." That is super-important; majorly, incredibly important. Are you American or Canadian, Tony? Even atheists feel the need to give traditional thanks at Thanksgiving over here. If no one is giving thanks at a Thanksgiving meal in a Norman Rockwell painting, that deserves to be highlighted, not mentioned in passing while discussing that guy Jim Martin. Thankfully, you write more about it and you place it at the end of a section, where it gives that strong finish and emotional impact I mentioned above. I just wanted to make sure you knew how important this fact was and to encourage you to emphasize its importance if you can. Thankfully it is a direct quote. Maybe you can even put it in a quotebox. * "He was sympathetic to the fact that the painting was produced in 1943 ..." The "was produced" indicates passive voice (note the missing subject: Mr. Rockwell) and isn't worth it (since Mr. Rockwell is the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence). (Note: There is plenty of passive voice in this article, but I'm not bringing most of it up because I must admit it is almost all worth it: In each case, it avoids mentioning a less-important subject over a more important object.) How about, "He was sympathetic to the fact that he produced the painting in 1943 ..." * Oh dear, is the abbreviation The Post or the Post? Now this article has both. Please find out which one is correct and correct the other one. (I'm guessing The Post because "the" is in the actual title, but I'll let you make the call. * I was expecting to read more about "not a commonly understood or accepted universal freedom" that I enjoyed reading in the lead. Shouldn't the article proper mention it, with in more detail and explanation?  * The Essay section is in perfect shape! And is a fascinating read! * Tony, it doesn't appear that you have run the bots from the toolbox to the right; such a basic step; please do so. For example, no image is using the "alt" parameter, which our blind readers depend upon; a comma needed after "Additionally" in "Additionally the OWI ..." and needed after "In addition" in "In addition there is a covered silver serving dish", "All of the people in the picture ..." change to "All the people in the picture ...", redirects include "Thanksgiving Picture" and "The Thanksgiving Picture" but not "A Hallmark Christmas". * I should check the sources. Is anyone doing that? I'm looking over the References and it you appear to be doing a good job on it. Maybe I can take a look at the online sources later. Very well-done article! I would say good-luck, but you've done pretty well up to this point earning FAs without me wishing you luck! What an honor it was for me to review your work Tony, as well as the article about Norman Rockwell's most famous painting! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "enduring wartime hardship at the time" – Redundant "time" and also redundant "at the time" from earlier in the sentence.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the point as it relates to the article and the remedy is equally confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you solved it! Each sentence in the lead now sticks to one main idea each. It's a very well-written lead. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is online. If you look at that, you can tell if I am summarizing the source correctly. There is really no further connection in the source though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right; the author assumes we're supposed to know what that means. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That quote is in half of the books on Rockwell. It is a quote. Above I explained to another reviewer that I believe two comma are missing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you can fix them. It may be a quote, but we, as editors, are allowed to make simple punctuation changes (See MOS:QUOTE). My main suggestion was to place another "ref" tag to the source immediately after the quote.
 * I have added [,] in two places.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed them to regular commas. It's okay. Our style guide states we are allowed to do that (link above), and I found more than one online example of others doing it. I also added the footnote I asked for; please ensure I did it correctly ("ref name=LaF"). Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merged with a slight change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, and I'm so sorry, but I don't think that it was an improvement; it's a bit muddled now; it was actually better before, but just needed to be a single sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried something else.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is much better. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I fixed four other lists in the article that needed it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No reason given.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have split off the last two sentences into a separate paragraph. The two new paragraphs are relatively stubby, but that is probably the best solution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is better as a separate paragraph, I agree. The new wording could be better, but I won't dwell on this. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the sentence. Feel free to revert or make further changes. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those were re-written by . See above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * However.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed it from the earlier section. However, in the reactions section it is natural to have different critics pointing out the same theme.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I like your improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quotebox added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks good; I hope you like it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you must have entirely cut the sentence as I can no longer find it; that's okay. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have books on Roosevelt checked out from the library right now, but I added what I could.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From Murray and McCabe? I see it referred to in the article; looks good. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So is the Pop Culture section. It's in great shape.
 * Technically, alt text is not a requirement for FA---though it's good to recommend, of course. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for keeping me in line; how about just the external reference checking script? It shows several external links have changed and one has rotted; in my humble opinion even a Good article should have all links working at 200 or 0, and should have them all archived too.
 * I only see one bad link and I have fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There were two. The link to animationarchive.net was bogus (it was displayed in blue right there on the checklinks output); with no source to reference at all, I'm afraid I have entirely cut its mention in the article (Lilo & Stitch). The checklinks script tells us another URL ("Inside America’s Great Romance With Norman Rockwell") has changed; I replaced the redirected URL with its new one.
 * I wish you would add the "alt" text to the images. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alt done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
 * Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you chimed in on the wrong discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean these were your edits. Since you have indicated you are done, I have removed inuse.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I left a note this morning about that broken tool on two talk pages ... if the tool is going to stay broken, I'll start giving the link to the diff when I copyedit, as you just did. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The tool seems to be working now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review

 * Be consistent with accessdates for books (example: it's given for Ref 10, but not for Ref 3).
 * Fixed (5 added).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 5 author?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 16's archive date format needs unifying
 * Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For Ref 2, 23 and 42 should that be McCabe, James?
 * Stylistically, I have always only reversed names for the first of several authors. This is true for all of my FAs that I can remember.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Understand
 * What's the page number for Ref 39?
 * Fixed ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 46 falls foul of WP:ALLCAPS. The date format is also different to the other sources. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy with corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on promotion, ! Prhartcom (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.