Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans/Archive 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not terrible but there is some unsourced content. (t &#183; 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: Since it doesn't look like the article is being watched or maintained, it should be submitted to Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 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 have been around since the 1800s.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 18 September 2023 (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)
 * -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was 13 years ago....Modernist (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Modernist, I am trying to clean up the article so if there is any content that should be added regarding Bliss let me know. I.e., if there is a way to show her funds paid for the work, let me know. For now, it is completely removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Modernist, N. B. MoMA credits a wide group of people for this painting: Partial gift of Irving Blum Additional funding provided by Nelson A. Rockefeller Bequest, gift of Mr. and Mrs. William A. M. Burden, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Fund, gift of Nina and Gordon Bunshaft, acquired through the Lillie P. Bliss Bequest, Philip Johnson Fund, Frances R. Keech Bequest, gift of Mrs. Bliss Parkinson, and Florence B. Wesley Bequest (all by exchange). I want to know why you credited Bliss. Looking for help-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was told Bliss at the time...............13 years ago....Modernist (talk) 19:37, 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&mdash;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)
 * 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
 * This is irrelevant to NFCC rules
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  07:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * User:buidhe
 * 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?
 * Regarding the prose content, if it does not infringe on NFCC, why must it be removed?
 * 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)