Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Campbell's Soup Cans
I would like to learn about the featured article procedure in an effort to become a better editor and hopefully, in the process, succeed at producing such an article. The best way to learn is under fire. TonyTheTiger 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the references, but you have the Comenas website listed two different ways, so don't know what to do with it - not clear if it's a book or what. I'm not crazy about the image placement. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One Comenas link is for a quote that he credits to a NY Times article. Thus, his website is a secondary source.  The others are for anecdotes he is relaying on his website as a primary source to the best of my knowledge.  The NYT attribution should be treated differently, but I am not sure how.  Thanks for the help. TonyTheTiger 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WRT the images. I truly wanted to have a picture gallery because the varied soup cans are only part of the story. The main story is about the original 32.  Thus, I don't want to have a lot of other images at the top of the page.  However, I don't want to get rid of them either because they are instructive.  TonyTheTiger 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the way the images extend into section headings: because the article is about the visual arts, the placement of the images should be visually pleasing.  I'll try to scare up some information about the citing problem on the Comenas link.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, just a quick comment, I noticed that images often depend on the computer/settings you are using. If I adjust the images on my Military brat (U.S. subculture) article at work, then they are messed up on my home computer.  If I adjust them at home, then they are messed up at work.  One other quick point, I haven't read the whole article yet, but the lead section should be expanded.Balloonman 18:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the lead is suppose to set up the article. Let me know if there are specific things in the article that caught you by surprise based on the lead.  This will help me to expand it. TonyTheTiger 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the lead is not supposed to set up the article; it's supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the article. See WP:LEAD (by the way, I haven't yet looked at the rest of your article - only fixed the refs).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment find a ref for the citation needed tag. I don't like the way at the end where you have images on both sides and stuff in the middle gets squeezed. It especially throws off reading the refs.Rlevse 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response What screen resolution are you viewing at? Your complaint sounds like a low resolution problem encountered with double sided images.  It is common on pages I create because I use 1600x1200 when formatting. It seems both yours and the above image placement problems are minor because the first art FA that I looked at Salvador Dalí seems to use double sided placement like I do.  Let me know if you think this is a big issue. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm at work right now, and on my computer it looks fine... but having said that, you probably want to change it because it will not look fine on my computer at home. In order to be a true featured article, it should be configured to look nice on both monitors.Balloonman 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WRT the citation. I have been looking for it for a month.  I had found it browsing a book at my local Borders that was sold out on my last visit.  I will try to find it quickly.   The best I have been able to do is find the similar following sentence that I added yesterday before nominating.  TonyTheTiger 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object very nice start, but not there yet. The WP:LEAD is inadequate, I seriously doubt any of those Fair Use images will pass muster (check with  ), "Background" is not an encyclopedic section heading, and there are massive amounts of uncited text - here is but one sample:
 * Extended debate on the merits and ethics of focusing ones efforts on such a mundane commercial inanimate model kept Warhol's work in the art world conversations. The pundits could not believe an artist would reduce the art form to the equivalent of a trip to the local grocery store. Talk did not translate into monetary success for Warhol. Dennis Hopper was the first of only a half dozen to pay $100 for a canvas. Blum decided to try to keep the 32 canvas as an intact set and bought back the few sales. This pleased Warhol who had conceived of them as a set, and he agreed to sell the set for 10 monthly $100 installments to Blum. Warhol had passed the milestone of his first serious art show. Unfortunately, while this exhibition was on view in Los Angeles, Martha Jackson canceled another planned December 1962 New York exhibition.
 * The article needs to be thoroughly cited, Fair Use images checked, and tweaked a bit more. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything that remains uncited in the article is likely from the Watson reference that I mentioned above as unrecovered. I went to a 2nd Borders today.  I will go to a third tomorrow to try to find the remaining citations.  TonyTheTiger 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm going to have to object too. The sheer number and overusage of fair use images makes most of them unqualified to fall under WP:FUC (plus, the images squeeze the text, causing the formatting to look odd, like Rlevse noted). There are some other problems that appear sporadically in the text (random skimming of text):
 * capitalization: American Pop art, why Warhol chose Campbell's Soup Cans (here, cans just refer to cans, not the paintings),  is that She asked him 
 * Is "every day" spelt as two words in the source?
 * Then later she gave him the advice to paint something very simple as well such as Campbell's Soup Cans. convoluted sentence
 * Despite the fact that at that time  "Though" would do the same thing
 * art worlds sensibilities - apostrophe.
 * directions ;) : such as the one to the left (when the sketch is on the right), as depicted to the right (when the painting is on the left), Campbell's Tomato Juice Box (above left),  (when its on the right side)
 * AZ t 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object—1a.
 * " the most renowned practitioner of American Pop art."—Is that the long version of "the most renowned American pop artist"?
 * "This particular pop art theme was a bit offensive to the conservative art world and there continues to be significant speculation on his true motives for producing the series and its subsequent variations."—"A bit offensive" is colloquial and vague. Remove "significant"? (weasaly) What are "true" motives? "Producing its subsequent variations"? And we have "various" and "variations" within two sentences.
 * "The one to the left"—the image is on the right ...
 * "Although Warhol attempted silkscreens of comic strips and other pop art,"—He only attempted? He didn't produce them? And there's confusion as to whether the meaning is "silkscreens of other pop art".
 * Winding snake: "Blum happened to be visiting Warhol in May 1962 as he was working on his 16th Campbell’s Soup can at a time when Warhol was being featured in a Time Magazine 11 May 1962 article The Slice-of-Cake School along with Roy Lichtenstein, James Rosenquist, and Wayne Thiebaud."

I'm going no further. The whole article needs close copy-editing. Tony 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback already received. I am going to attempt to clean this up as per your suggestions ASAP. The main downtown branch Chicago Public Library has the Stewart book. I got a quick look at the reference copy on Saturday. I have put my name on the hold list to receive the circulating copy at my local branch when it becomes available. I appreciate the encouragement of doable improvements that I have received. TonyTheTiger 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to get someone to clear the Fair Use issue on the images - I don't speak that language. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I got some fair use feedback on the talk page. It seems the images themselves will not be a problem as long as I incorporate them into the article.  TonyTheTiger 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll consider that done if you get an opinion from Jkelly or Meegs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OBJECT. Citations need to be more complete, per WP:CITE. Author and page number is not a complete citation, even if the book is listed below. Should combine them. Not enough referencing, either. Writing needs to be copyedited significantly.  Prose isn't exactly brilliant, but it's better than average. Not quite enough though to pass criteria 1(a).  Too many short, stubby sections.  Need better organization of the article (i.e. sections). Too many opinions and claims about Warhol's work masquerading as "fact" (even with citations, statements asserting claims of "most popular", etc. are still just opinions.  Citing someone's opinion doesn't make it a fact...see WP:RS). Doesn't pass the neutrality test. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation system used in this article is fine, and common. You are misreading WP:CITE if you believe it precludes the use of this style. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is you need to go back and re-read WP:CITE. Especially that section about "full citations". In case you can't find it: Full citations may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates. Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Page numbers are essential whenever possible. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional..  Reading that (which is utterly clear) and then looking at your citations in the article...simply mentioning just an authors surname and page number does not a full citation make.  Go back and make them "full citations" and then apologize for having the presumption for suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. I just promoted my objection to STRENUOUSLY OBJECT. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The full citations are provided in the references section. Check any five featured articles and you will find one using this same system, e.g. Pericles, Alcibiades, etc. It is pretty common, in fact it is more or less identical to a very common style. Sorry if I offended you. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much academic work you do, but even with a little you'd know that MLA requires you to use the full citation first in a note before you can use the Last name, page number format as an abbreviation when doing later ibidem and op.cit. entries. If these "citations" were placed within the body of the article as relevant, in the shape of Harvard Referencing (a format I hate with a passion), they'd be fine and I wouldn't object on this point. Right now, though, they are footnotes, and as footnotes, should comply with footnote guidelines.  Lastly, Comparing to other FAs is a tricky prospect, as several older FAs don't meet modern standards and should be brought up for review. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re. "most popular" etc. This is quite acceptable to state underWP:V if it is found in a reliable source: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This does conform to WP:NPOV. If there is another reliable source that states something different, then both viewpoints should be included. Tyrenius 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Object. Some more thought needs to be put into the images used in the article, especially since they're used under Fair Use guidelines. I'm sorry if it seems everyone's piling on with their demands, but at least these should not take long to correct:
 * Dimensions: First, a somewhat niggling point of pedantry. You need to scale back the size of some of the images. If they were freely-licensed, there'd be no problem, but for Fair Use there's no need to upload them with dimensions larger than are used on the page itself. Image:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg is obscenely large.
 * Captions: This is the sticking point for my objection. I'm pretty sure you've tried to follow the guidelines at the bottom of WP:CAPTION, but those are more relevant to articles on individual works of art than series such as this. The caption in Opening of the Fifth Seal is great, since the article goes on to discuss the work in detail. That isn't the case here – each image gets only a single sentence in the article to describe them, if that. Move the current captions to the image description pages, that's what they're there for. Instead, explain in the caption why the reader should bother to look at the image. If you don't know why they should, then it's likely the image doesn't belong.
 * Rationales: To be honest, if your captions are good, I'll go through and redo these myself, so don't worry overly much about them. But since I've some spare time, I'll pick one set apart:
 * from Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg:
 * It is a historically significant painting. - This one's fair enough, as it aims to respond to the "nature of the copyrighted work" criterion.
 * The image is only being used for informational purposes. - Too vague. What information does this image in particular bring to the article that its fellow half-dozen already there do not?
 * Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the image depicted is familiar to the general public. - This is just waffle, and essentially repeats 2.
 * The image is readily available on the internet. - Not a justification for Fair Use, else we'd be free to upload full mp3s of popular songs, and use any AP photograph that took our fancy.
 * Basically, my object amounts to this: Beyond a lead image to illustrate a typical example of the series, it's not clear why the others are there. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying 2 images would be sufficient for this article. The upper right image obviously must stay and you seem to suggest one variation.  I think this is incorrect.  Now, the phrase Campbell's Soup Cans means much more than the original 32.  I think an article should attempt to educate the reader by example on what the name now means.  Thus, I included several examples.  If I could find an additional image from his 3rd phase I would add it.  I will also photograph Campbell's Soup Cans II next time it is on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago.  I think this is actually an example of an article where a gallery would be well placed, but I can't include one and get have a successful FA. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, I just learned that not only screen resolution, but also browser choice vastly affects the layout of images on a page. In the future, after I revise this page and reapply for FAC I will request image complainants state their browser and screen resolution so I can do my best to understand their complaints. TonyTheTiger 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.