Comments-per WP:LEAD, the citations in the lead make it too cluttered. Also, one of your sentences states is considered to be or something along those lines. Could this be reworded? Sounds like a weasel word. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 18:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Tbh, I don't see the point of citing part of the lead, as opposed to all of it. If it's already cited in the text, why cite it again in the lead (unless you're citing all the facts in the lead)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalan (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It is commonly accepted at FAC that editors are free to create a either fully cited or fully uncited lead. In this case, with eleven references in the lead, the intent is to cite all controversial claims presented as facts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I know the policy; what I'm arguing is that the lead doesn't seem fully cited. For example;
Critical review of these images, like most of Rockwell's work, has not been entirely positive. Rockwell's idyllic and nostalgic approach to regionalism made him a popular illustrator but a lightly regarded fine artist during his lifetime. These paintings generally are viewed with this sentiment. However, he has created a niche in the enduring social fabric with the Freedom from Want image which is emblematic of what is now known as the "Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving." <- That isn't referenced. Whether this is a controversial claim for you is irrelevant; a reader like me has no idea. How are we supposed to believe that this is true or not? If none of the lead was cited we'd expect to find this information in the body, but since part of the lead is cited, shouldn't all of it be cited, as well? JonCatalán(Talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The Notes section should be split into a Notes section and a References section following it that lists the Bibliographic information for each source, while each footnote just lists the author's name and page number; see WP:CITE and related pages for details.
I am not currently in possession of the books, which I got from the Chicago Public Library when I took the article to GAC. Let me know if this is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please fix these and tell me and I'll come back and support it. Joe Nutter 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That looks better, Support. Good job. – Joe Nutter 01:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In the first part of the Exhibition section, the sentences are a little short and terse; expanding them slightly and amking the flow better would be nice.
I have expanded the sentences a bit. I am sure there is a lot of information missing. Is this enough to satisfy you?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but the second paragraph of the section just sounds like it's advertising the book. Is it a vital part of the article to have? Skinny87 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If we are going to do a comprehensive article about this series, I can think of no reason to exclude a single paragraph about the official fiftieth anniversary book from the article. The fact that the book is mentioned is no more an advertisment than the fact that the posters are mentioned, IMO. It seems like good information that should be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent article. Interesting and balanced. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.