User:TonyTheTiger/CSCFAC2 draft

During the FAC1 discussion there were recurring arguments. The most substantive concerns were fair use images, lead length, image formatting, unsourced statements, citation/reference style, copyediting, general notability. I have addressed these concerns as follows:
 * Fair use image concerns
 * On all fair use image pages I have adopted the Information template format.
 * On all fair use image pages I have revised my fair usage justifications.
 * I have contacted the Artist's Rights Society to obtain consent. They in turn have contacted the The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. on my behalf to determine a licensing arrangement.  They confirmed that they would be able to provide a discounted fee license for this purpose for all 8 fair use images in the article plus an additional image to be obtained from the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago for the Campbell's Soup Can II from the MCA's collection.  I do not believe any individual editor should bear the burden of licensing fees for a wikipedia article.  In this case, either 1 year or 3 year licenses would be nominal, but in aggregate would amount to a three figure sum for 3 year licenses.  I was also informed that I could alternatively claim fair use.  I was also given the impression that neither the Artist's Rights Society nor the Warhol Foundation would place any priority on fighting a fair use claim for these images.  However, I was informed that they would reserve the right to do so.  I believe the fact that nominal fee licenses could be obtained somewhat legitimized the fair use claim, but am no expert on the matter.  Furthermore, the fact that the ARS recognizes the alternative of a fair use claim is encouraging.
 * I have notified Permissions at Wikipedia dot org and WP:CP about the above situaion.
 * One of the concerns of the fair use law is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." One might argue that this article is a form of educational and critical advertising for the entire theme of Campbells Soup Cans and have an ameliorative impact on their value. Furthermore, another argument regards "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" of which the few images herein are a small part of the entire series.  In a sense the article is scholarly and critical as is necessary because it is a review of secondary scholarly and critical sources.  Granted, the determination of whether this is a fair use is a matter of opinion, but the Artist Right Society does not seem inclined to object even if I do not pay for the license out of pocket.  Furthermore, paying the licensing fees would actually not suffice with respect to wikipedia policy.
 * Lead length concerns
 * I have augmented the lead significantly according to WP:LEAD.
 * Image formatting concerns
 * I have reduced the image sizes to better accommodate low resolution viewers who may complain about text squeezing in the variations section.
 * I have adhered to WP:CAP as suggested.
 * On two or three of the fair use images, some size debate continues between Chowbok and others including myself. I am amenable to his ideas or whichever prevailing ideas obtain.  Basically, his opinion is that the earlier images (in sections where images are not on both sides of the page) need not be set to small sizes because users can set their own default sizes.  I do not mind this change, but the article seems to have become stable with the small size setting.
 * Unsourced statement concerns
 * I have scoured the web and the Chicago Public Library for proper sources to the best of my ability.
 * Citation/reference style concerns
 * Given the large number of texts that I refer to multiple times (on multiple pages therein) in the article, the chosen format reduces citation redundancy. For a given book that has a half dozen different cited pages, I do not have to cite the entire book 6 times with this style.  Instead, I briefly cite the author and page.  Then in a separate section at the bottom I give a full citation for each text only one time.
 * According to separate sections it is not uncommon to have separate notes and references sections. References sections are where the full citations should be according to the full citations section.
 * Copy editing concerns
 * I have done my best to review the article myself.
 * I have called on the services of my CHICOTW colleague TheQuandry.
 * I am willing to call on WP:LoCE if this article is in need of further work in this regard.
 * General notability concerns
 * It is now apparent that the original exhibit was the West coast premier of Pop art.
 * I have clarified that although Andy Warhol produced work in many genres and media, the original exhibit is was his first solo exhibit as a fine artist. There is some contention that this may not be significant because he had exhibited as a commercial illustrator previously.  I think the preceding and following notability bulletpoints more than offset this concern.
 * I have clarified that one variation of this series made Warhol the highest priced living American painter and another variation recently sold for almost $12 million.

In short since the first nomination, the article has undergone significant change. Even since the FAC1 was closed the article has undergone significant change. I hope you will favorably review the current version for featured article status. TonyTheTiger 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)