Jump to content

Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article needs some ♥

So, I just noticed that this was a FA in 2007. But there is a lot of material in the article that looks to be stuff that s/b or is in other articles. Also-considering the recent art crime, and the value of the stolen museum prints set-at half a million for more than several museum quality Soup Can prints, with the SOLD prices mentioned in this article, I think that current value should be defined here better? "The section, "Early Works"--for example, that is OK if it relates to the Soup Can(s) in particular, but content that is duplicated in the Andy Warhol article that does not pertain to the series probably should not?TeeVeeed (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this article meets the current FA standards...

This article was promoted to FA status more than 13 years ago, and the FA standards have changed since then. Wouldn't it be nice if it were to receive a featured article review against the current FA standards? I'd appreciate it if someone could commence an FAR for this article. --69.160.29.222 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: By the way, I feel like we could informally improve the article before someone takes it to WP:FAR... --69.160.29.222 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to explain what deficiencies there are wrt WP:WIAFA by identifying some actionable improvements that are needed. As this is not an actual FAR notification, I have removed this for now from the notifications template.. It could be readded is some actual concerns are listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not terrible but there is some unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This is a 2007 Featured article that has not been maintained to FA standards:

  • There are unaddressed issues on the talk page dating back four years.
  • There has been no response to the need for improvement posted three months ago.
  • There is uncited text.
  • Images have been crammed in without regard to layout, and there is considerable MOS:SANDWICH.
  • A MOS review/update is needed, eg MOS:ALLCAPS.
  • There are poorly formatted citations, eg ... various authors (2012). Regarding Warhol: Sixty Artists, Fifty Years. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 272. ISBN 978-0300184983.
  • WP:NOTPRICE; prices are sourced to a Christie's press release.

Since it doesn't look like the article is being watched or maintained, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and this article

As of my writing this, there are now 11 uses of non-free images in this article. I understand that for articles about iconic art, we're going to have more than normal, but part of the policy for using non-free images is minimal number of images (WP:NFCCP #3a). It will be very hard to justify that 11 images is the minimal number, so sadly, something is probably gonna have to go. Hog Farm Talk 23:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Hog Farm, There were 7 non-frees when I started Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 last week. Now there are 6. Can you join me there to discuss?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Silkscreen or not?

It's my understanding that the 1962 Campbell's Soup Cans paintings did NOT use silkscreens, but were in fact hand-painted (with some elements stamped on) - this seems to be borne out by the current write-up on the MOMA page https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbells-soup-cans-1962/

If true, this would demand extensive reworking of the article, not just in the initial section! For example, the caption under the 1962 preparatory pencil drawing identifies it as a silkscreen stencil.2603:8001:8002:DB00:D40C:7EA8:2516:5F8F (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Campbell Soup cans

Enough on Andy Warhol. I want to know the name of the artist who designed the label for Campbell’s in the first place 2605:B100:E009:CD06:E085:1E19:34FE:AE1F (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans acquisition by Museum of Modern Art

here seems to contradict my sources. It is possible that Lillie P. Bliss donated money to be used for acquisitions. However, it was added as pure WP:OR. I have sourced contradictory story. Making a note of this artifact that has been replaced in case there is a nugget of encyclopedic content to it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Same story?

Currently the prose has the following content: "A John Coplans Artforum article, which was in part spurred on by the responding display of dozens of soup cans by a nearby gallery with a display advertising them at three for 60 cents ($5.8 in 2022), encouraged people to take a stand on Warhol. Another detractor stacked a pyramid of real Campbell's Soup cans in the window with a sign that read "Do Not Be Misled. Get the Original. Our Low Price 2—0.33¢." ($3.19 in 2022)."

Is this the same story being told multiple generations later? If so, please advise on how to handle it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute

User:Buidhe, During Campbell's Soup I DYK run on the main page, I should have been watching Campbell's Soup Cans, but I am touristing this week. It seems there are 3 issues of contention.

  1. The dress is if import because the relationship between Warhol and Campbells Soup is relevant. We have 2 examples to show how Campbells embraced Warhol's theme. This is one of them.
  2. The prose content about the development of the can, the contents of the can (Campbell's Soup as we know it—in condensed form), and the label are all intertwined.
  3. The images of the building where they were originally presented seem relevant to me. I am not as sure about this, but I think it still presents information on the type of building.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am open to discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. Despite many people explaining it to you, you still have little understanding of NFCC. Unless the *image* is significantly increasing readers' understanding of *Campbell's Soup Cans*—in a way that text or free content cannot do—it must be removed
  2. This is irrelevant to NFCC rules
  3. What the art gallery looks like in the twenty first century does not increase reader understanding of the article topic, it is purely decorative
FYI you should have read the DYK rules because your article was not eligible and was passed due to reviewer and promoter not checking. (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
User:buidhe
  1. Yes I don't understand WP:NFCC fully or we would not be here. The content that is relevant attempts to show that at first Campbells considered taking action regarding Warhol's use of their intellectual property in his themed art. However, the company did an about face and embraced Warhol, hiring him and using his themed art for its own promotional purposes. Please keep in mind that the dress does not even replicate the label or the art very well (It has no flavors and does not say condensed). So we are presenting a depiction to the reader that is not even infringing on Warhols art and it surely does not infringe on the commercial opportunity of the promotion that ended over 55 years ago or impinge upon the resale value of the dress. The distinction between the design of the dress and Warhol's art surely must reduce the NFCC infringement does it not?
  2. Regarding the prose content, if it does not infringe on NFCC, why must it be removed?
  3. Supposedly the architecture of the face of the building is fairly unchanged. The windows and doors are supposedly original based on conversation with the current merchant.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Multi-colored auction sale

I am unable to find independent corroboration of this sale of a multi-colored version. If anyone can find any RS content for the page, that would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 11:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


I'll be reviewing this w/ some comments below. Realmaxxver (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Instant pass on criteria 5: This article's very stable
  • There are a lot of citations in this one sentence in the CSI & CSCII section: "An edition of the second set, Campbell's Soup Cans II is part of the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago.[136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145]" If anything can be done to cut down the citations that would be cool, because it looks a little bit like WP:OVERCITE in my opinion.

"It consists of ten prints: Tomato Beef Noodle O',[5] Chicken 'n Dumplings,[9] Vegetarian Vegetable,[10] Clam Chowder,[11] Old fashioned vegetable made with beef stock,[12] Scotch Broth,[13] Cheddar Cheese,[14] Oyster Stew,[15] Golden Mushroom,[16] and Hot Dog Bean.[17]" Realmaxxver (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review Dead link for Campbell_tomato_soup_ad_1968.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmaxxver (talk • contribs) 19:30, November 16, 2023 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I should get working on this real quick. Realmaxxver (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


Criteria 1 and 4

Early life

Didn't find any big issues in this section. I made a few changes there, but the prose is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmaxxver (talk • contribs) 06:25, November 27, 2023 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Thanks for taking time with this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans/Archive_2&oldid=1208928213"