Comments, leaning support. As I think I've mentioned to you, I have a set of the Four Freedoms in a dilapidated War Bonds envelope that has been folded sometime in the past seventy years. I've spent several minutes studying the painting. The detail on the fingers is ... amazing. Just saying. Now to the review.
The first sentence could use at least one comma, after "Roosevelt". I might put a second one in, but that would be purely stylistic. But I think you need one.
I'm going to pause at this point because you've caused me to check my personal library and I have useful information. Send me an email and I will send you the pages as attachments. I am traveling later today so I may be slow to actually send them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The final statement in the section needs a source.
I'm not happy about the term "bible-toting" which is a bit pejorative and not really applicable to the situation. Additionally, as one somewhat familiar with Jewish prayer and its rituals, the Bible is not an object of prayer, though customs differ on some elements of prayer within Judaism and I'm less familiar with some. May I ask, if it is available, what the source says exactly?
I am not in possession of any offline sources. I had them checked out from the Chicago Public Library for about 5 or 6 months (renewing 3 week borrowings) until I started to forget to renew them. I may be able to get to the Library in the next week or two or your local Library may have the book.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I am traveling at present which is why I am so slow to get these done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"all seeking barber services" perhaps "waiting their turn in the barber's chair" or similar, as what you have seems a bit overly formal. I guess we can't say they are all there for a haircut, they might want a shave.
I'm thinking of the Preppy Handbook and so forth, that I remember from the early Eighties.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Rockwell's intended theme was religious tolerance, and it seemed lost in the original composition according to Rockwell" to avoid the repetition, perhaps "Rockwell's intended theme was religious tolerance, but he felt the original composition did not successfully make this point."
Source says: "Although often darkened or otherwise enhanced in reproduction, Freedom to Worship is composed of soft grays, beiges, and browns and is painted so thinly that the weave of the canvas is visible with no brushstrokes showing. Rockwell may have felt thtat these stylistic changes in The Four Freedoms were improvements to his regular painting style, reflecting his understanding of the importance of this commission and perhaps his anticipation of the public reaction to the works."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"I thought your Four Freedoms were great. I especially loved the Freedom of Worship and the composition and symbolism expressed in it. It appealed to me very much.": I'd drop "It appealed to me very much." since we already know he though the series was "great" and he "especially loved the Freedom of Worship".
"platitude that suggests the plurality of Rockwell's own thoughts on religion: its likely source was a phrase included in theThirteen Articles of Faithby Joseph Smith.": attribution? Also, is this technically a "theory", or just an opinion?
"Theory" sounds awfully more formal to me than what sems to be implied here. Was the author putting forth an actual theory on something, or just conjecturing something and using the word "theory" in an informal way? You know, "theory" in the sense of "My theory is, that guy's just messed up.", as apposed to "theory" in "opponent process theory". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Either way, everything in quotes is directly from the source. There is not much room for change because even the "original prose" outside of quotes strongly supports the source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The word "theory" isn't in quotes, though, and we aren't restricted to using the vocabulary the source does (unlessd irectly quoting)—and in many cases, it would be irresponsible to stick to the sloppy usage of the source: for example, if you were paraphrasing someone who was talking about a criminal who had fled the scene of the crime, and the quote was, "The guy literally flew from the place!", it woould be irresponsible to parahrase this as "The perpetrator actually aviated his way from the scene." It's obvious that the speaker was not using "literally" in its literal sense; similarly with the word "theory" here, where no formal theory appears to have been put forward. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Post editor Ben Hibbs chose Durant," Per body text standing independently of the lead, we need this person's first name. Also, the lead says WIll Durant was a philosopher; the body text says he "also lectured on history and philosophy". those two don't quite gel. Can we clarify what was his academic qualification / profession?
WP:LASTNAME is generally an exception to the "body text standing independently of the lead" consideration.
I just went downtown yesterday to get books from the library whose content was being challenged. However, I did not pick this one up. Saying he is a philosopher does not contradict that he lectured on history and philosophy. I assume many philosophers give lectures on philosophy as well as another subject or two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, here is the exact quote: "...Freedom of Worship ran, along with an essay by best-selling writer and lecturer on history and philosophy, Will Durant. In his mid-fifties, Durant was at the height of his fame and busy with his ten-volume life's work, The Story of Civilization.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"The figure carrying the religious book in the lower left is Jewish." Lower right?
"The dark-haired woman with the well-lit face" - but she has light hair - compare her to both the jew and the man behind her. The other two figures only have lighter hair than her because theirs is a pale grey.
"In June 1942, Post editor Ben Hibbs took to Rockwell's Four Freedoms sketches" What is meant by "took to"? I assume it means something like "took to them with a (metaphorical) hammer", but it needs to be clarified.
"His final version relied on more subtle visual clues, including a rosary and a religious book". I must be missing something here. What could be less subtle than a rosary and a religious book? It is particularly hard to understand this analysis when one has his first work-up as context, where one of his problems had turned out to be the very subtle cues, that had themselves caused him to veer toward ethnic caricatures that he disliked.
"Critical review of the painting describes disappointment of the universality of the Freedom of Religion,..." This expression doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand the phrase "disappointment of the universality of" so don't understand what the sentence is saying. Can you clarify?
I believe this means that the individual worshiper may be put off by a work that supports the practice of faiths other than their own. I think it means people want to see support for their own faith, but not necissarily support for other faiths. Suppose this was an artwork about freedom to love whomever or whatever you want. Although people might feel good about their own love interests being supported, they may not want to see a poster endorsing every freaky love interest known to man. A poster with a LGBT-sensitive depictions, men loving blowup dolls, men loving animals, women with dildos, etc, might be a bit much for the traditionalist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, can you revise it to be clearer about that. Maybe just "Some are disappointed by the acceptance of all faiths expressed in Freedom of Religion"?hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you confirm the Time magazine item at footnote 8 really does not have an author?