Talk:Freedom of Speech (painting)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You are catching me by surprise a bit. I did not expect this to be reviewed so fast.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to this so fast.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It popped up on a list I monitor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech/Article alerts. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Description sect

The pull quote blue box might look a bit better aligned on the right side instead of the left. — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

rearrange.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, looks much better! — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See also sect

Could a few more entries be added to other relevant articles in the See also sect? Right now it's got zero links but just the portal, which is a good link though. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the what links here tab and the only link that makes any sense in the see also section is Index of World War II articles (F). I don't really think that belongs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You could add links generally related to Norman Rockwell and Freedom of speech topics. — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen a work of art with the author in the see also section, but I added Freedom of speech.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. Heh heheh, but I didn't literally mean those two links, I meant links related to those two general topics. I'm sure you can find some more. Maybe there are other notable works of art that relate to the topic of free speech. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Tense uniformity

1. First paragraph of lede is in present tense.

   See Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. Works of art that still exist are introduced and described in the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

2. 2nd paragraph of intro sect is in past tense.

   See Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. The history of works of art are commonly described in the past tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

3. Background sect mixes present and past tense.

   revised (tense changed to past).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

4. Description sect mixes present and past tense.

   this section mixes description (which is commonly present tense) with history (which is commonly past tense).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

5. Production sect looks like it is mostly in past tense, this sect is good for tense uniformity.
6. Critical review sect uses both present and past tense.

   Some changes to past tense have been made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest modifying entire article so it is all in one tense style for tense uniformity. I recommend using past tense, throughout the entire article, for ease of readability, flow, and comprehension for both readers and editors, alike. — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on this sect: Looks a bit better, though the multiple tense shifts throughout the article, still within the same subsections in a few places, are still a bit jarring for the reader. Strongly recommend going to WP:GOCE and then also WP:PR after this process is completed. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to use the same tense structure as the three paintings that I had promoted to Category:FA-Class visual arts articles this year. Next up for this is WP:MHR (you can only have one thing at PR at a time).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, neat. Good luck with the review through WP:MHR, I still recommend both WP:PR and WP:GOCE after that. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I am looking for a WP:GTC. I am not sure that I am going to take all 5 articles through PR, but I will try for 2 or 3 FACs. I will probably not nominate this for FAC. So it is just this and MHR before GTC for sure. Possibly a PR depending on feedback on the other articles in the series.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would consider taking this one to FA status, we really could use more FAs for WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech!!! — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If there were more content I would. I am probably going to take Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) and Freedom from Want (painting) to FAC. If I can get one of the other three to a high enough level that would be great because then I could go for an WP:FTC rather than a WP:GTC. I just don't see it happening.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay well please try to reconsider, this site could use more high quality content about freedom of speech. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of references

Citation 2 - Amazon.com

Citation 2 is to this link http://www.amazon.com/Norman-Rockwells-Four-Freedoms-Inspire/dp/0936399422 which is to Amazon.com.

There are much better citations that could be used for this info, I'm not sure why a hyperlink to Amazon.com is being used here.

Please replace this cite with a better quality cite, to a secondary source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation replaced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I still see the cite there as = ^ "Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms: Images That Inspire a Nation". Amazon.com, Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-11. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I swapped out the wrong ref. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Please spell out full date format for all cites so they have uniformity. Some use 2013-12-29, others use December 29, 2013. Please use the latter, throughout, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite 7 has a dead link

^ "Norman Rockwell in the 1940s: A View of the American Homefront". Norman Rockwell Museum. Retrieved 2008-04-12.[dead link]

This cite has a dead link, please fix, thank you.

While you're at it, please recheck and update accessdates for all cites that have hyperlinks.

— Cirt (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite 11 could be fleshed out

Jump up ^ "I Like To Please People". Time magazine. Time Inc. 1943-06-21. Retrieved 2008-04-12.

This cite could be fleshed out a bit more. Same issue with date format. Full title has word "Art" in front of title. Date should be given as June 21, 1943. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,766759,00.html appears to be behind a paywall, I think there is a template to note that in the citation.

Please also double check all cites are formatted with WP:CIT templates for both standardization and uniformity. — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In April 2008, Time was not behind a paywall. I have added "Art" as well as "Subscription required".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay great, thank you! I think there is a template to add that subscription required text thingy instead, best to use a template so it's standardized for uniformity throughout Wikipedia. Ah yes, it's Template:Subscription required. — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you added it right into the citation template, excellent, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope of research and preponderance of available references for this article

I have a concern that not enough research has been done to cover the preponderance of secondary source references available to fully give the article breadth of coverage from those references.

In a search for "norman rockwell" "freedom of speech" "four freedoms", Google Books comes up with over one-thousand-and-four-hundred (1,400) total results.

This article lists five (5) total references.

I'd imagine the article could be expanded with at least fifteen (15) or so more secondary sources, with more information to enlarge the scope and breadth of the article.

Both the amount of total references currently cited, and the size and scope and breadth of the article in its current state, just seems a bit skimpy.

Should be pretty easy to find more sources from that search suggested, above.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have read about a dozen books in the last two weeks. You can note how this article has expanded in that time. Most books repeat the same content and provide the exact same quotes. There is actually less unique content than you might think based on your search results.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I respect that you've done your due diligence with reading those twelve or so books. I still suggest you try to expand the article with about fifteen (15) or more sources. In the meantime I'll also try to dig deeper into some of those sources from that search mentioned, above. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The one thing I can do to expand this is to talk a bit about the related essay. I currently have 6 Rockwell books checked out. I spent a day at the Chicago Public Library and went through several other sources. There is basically nothing left about the painting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright sounds good, go ahead and expand the bit about the related essay, and we'll revisit after that. Thanks for all your help being so polite and responsive so far, — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am trolling through search results looking for substantive commentary on the essay. I have been unable to find anything.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay sounds good, keep trying and update back here please. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on an apparent typo

Comment. A quote near the end includes "A great picture, I think is on e shich moves and inspires millions of people". I think there must be a typo, probably "one which" rather than "on e shich", but the reference is off-line so I won't just fix it myself. I think this is an open GA review and that this comment is helpful within that, but please let me know if this is not the correct place to make a comment like this. --doncram 20:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed. — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• O.K. is there anything outstanding to resolve.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just the bit above about trying to expand the article with more sources. I will try myself to see if there's more in any other sources, if you could help out that would be great. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through all the sources I could find. I have also gone through the resources that an expert has found below. This is all I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

Hi Tony, Happy New Year!

Sorry to say, I couldn’t come up with much more on this. The WP article’s already using most of the substantive discussions out there – yes, it’s mentioned in passing, one or two sentences, in many many sources, but I agree that there isn’t much extra information in them. Here are some lesser ones.

• Here is a page or so from a book [1] (the link goes to page 97, the F. of S. discussion actually starts on page 98).
  • Incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Here is a rather odd article, by a professor of theology at Princeton, that discusses Rockwell’s Adam’s apple and his depiction of an Adam’s apple in F. of S. [2] It’s not free access tho, apart from the abstract. There is some sort of academic-journal-article-access-request WP page, isn’t there? Way off the beaten track, I’d like to read about it :)
  • Not incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Another paywalled article, which I’m not sure even talks about this particular painting. The NYT published five Rockwell do-overs in the aftermath of September 11. [3]
  • I believe referenced article incorporated at Four Freedoms.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Short mention by John Updike here [4]
  • Incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• It seems Thomas Kinkade created some 9-11 inspired versions of the Four Freedoms. A very brief mention of a derivation from F of S here [5].
  • Incorporated at Four Freedoms--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Another brief book mention contrasting town hall meetings, Rockwells’s “idealized” vs. a 2009 photo of one. [6] A Gbook search of rockwell "freedom of speech" town hall meeting brings up a lot of other short mentions.
  • Incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• There’s been a lot of talk about the D. Solomon book, some of it quite critical. The Rockwell family issued a statement about it, published in the Huffington Post, which includes the sentences “But sex is a major theme of the book and her phantom theories color and distort everything, including Rockwell's entire character and her interpretations of his art. There is no way to separate her sexual theories from the rest of the book. Her take on "Freedom of Speech" is that the man standing is "unattached and sexually available. Unbuttoned and unzipped." [7]. Don’t know if you want to go there.
  • Incorporated before mentioned here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is some great research, thank you to Novickas. It's a bit unclear which of the points above have been addressed and incorporated and which are remaining to research further. — Cirt (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My request was for assistance beefing up the essay section. None of these help do that now that I have looked at them. Some helped this article and other helped the Four Freedoms article. There are a couple like this one that are not accessible.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like some info from Scholes mentioned by Novickas, above, could be used for Critical review type info. — Cirt (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Already incorporated.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, thank you for that. What about the rest noted by Novickas, above? — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, much better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed as GA quality

Passed as GA quality.

Thanks for being so responsive to GA Reviewer comments, above.

— Cirt (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)