Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2023 [1].

Campbell's Soup Cans

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a set of paintings and subsequent variations/derivations by Andy Warhol. This is a seminal piece of art. It is one of 17 paintings listed at vital articles level 4 and one of 10 contemporary art works listed at vital articles level 5. I was the nominator when it previously failed FAC1 on 20 January 2007 and when User:Raul654 relisted the failed nomination which passed on 26 March 2007. It was delisted on 5 March 2021. It seems that there were many citation needed and NFCC issues. I have updated and expanded the article, which now seem fit for relisting.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA (to be updated if re-promoted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. You now need to add this nomination to the top of the list of FACs. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
Given the number of non-free images in this article, the fair-use rationales for each will need to be much stronger to justify their inclusion. At the moment the justifications provided are insufficient.
File:Warhol_Campbell's_Soup_Can_(Tomato)_1962_Pencil_on_paper.jpg: why is the US Olympic Committee believed to be the copyright holder?
- P.S. Since at one point on the page it says Andy Warhol Foundation and the other it says US Olympic Committee, I assumed the latter was an artifact from format copying. I made it so both parts of the page refer to AWF as the copyright holder.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:100_Cans.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Small_Torn_Campbell’s_Soup_Can_(Pepper_Pot),_1962.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Nikkimaria, There was much ado in the FARC regarding images. I sort of thought that since that discussion talked of 11 articles, and this version had only 7 left that the remaining images were resolved. However, I will get to all of these issues within a couple of days if not sooner. I do have one caveat that there are two different stories added to the article about a common set of 10 screenprints. I was wondering if I could add an image of that set to the article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general issue as raised at the FARC persists: the more pieces of non-free content you have, the harder it becomes to justify each. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Nikkimaria, Well I have decided to make getting this up to snuff a priority. All images are open for discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the main image File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg seems to be well justified.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second most important image is File:20070624 Campbell's Soup Cans - Milwaukee Art Museum.JPG. I have expanded the text regading this and included a mention in the WP:LEAD. Is this in good shape (well justified in terms of actual need and description of the fair use)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:100_Cans.jpg source updated.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Warhol Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato) 1962 Pencil on paper.jpg is the third most important image to this article if I need to prioritize my fair use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Small_Torn_Campbell’s_Soup_Can_(Pepper_Pot),_1962.jpg source updated.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gog the Mild am I allowed to make the following edit that is commented out?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are. Feel free to attract the attention of editors who you think may be willing to review - and this is defined fairly broadly - so long as you do so in a neutral manner - which your proposed edit does. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings:

From Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 @SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Nikkimaria, Czar, Politicsfan4, DrKay, and Z1720:

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans @Manderiko, AnonEMouse, AaronY, Circeus, Dark Shikari, Raul654, Xyzzy n, Ceoil, 17Drew, SandyGeorgia, Balloonman, Johnbod, Tyrenius, and Michaelas10:

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 @GeeJo, Christopher Parham, Tony1, AndyZ, Rlevse, and SandyGeorgia:

Top 10 editors by edits at Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans @Tyrenius, Research Method, MartinGugino, ChrisRuvolo, Modernist, TeeVeeed, Franciselliott, and Wafulz:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extending additional invites to the most active editors of the page not listed above @Gkklein, Bus stop, Mandarax, Gurchzilla, and Research Method: for edit count @Dsavla, Simon KHFC, Wehwalt, Wafulz, Lindseytoni, and Gleb95: for text added @TheQuandry, Pauljrmillers, Gkklein, and OckRaz: for characters count added.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) That was a typo for User:Mandarax-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkimaria would you state which images have sufficient fair use rationales, which have defiient fair use rationales and which images are of questionable necessity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure that File:100 Cans.jpg depicts anything of encyclopedic merit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Small Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg depicts an encyclopedic topic of relevance and would be the fourth image I would try to defend.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only image whose FUR IMO is sufficient at the moment is File:Campbells_Soup_Cans_MOMA.jpg. Several other images have rationales which are nearly identical - any one of them could be substituted for this one without an issue, but they are not justified as additions at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to expand FURs at File:Warhol Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato) 1962 Pencil on paper.jpg, File:20070624 Campbell's Soup Cans - Milwaukee Art Museum.JPG and File:Small Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg. Can we discuss whether these are now satisfactory or what is necessary to make them so.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can we discuss File:Black font crop from Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg and File:Cheddar Cheese crop from Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg, which were both cropped from the main image before it was reduced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions on the non-free images haven't changed since my last comment. On the new images, File:Andy_Warhol_in_1950.jpg is missing evidence of pre-1977 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Nikkimaria, I have switched to the cropped version of that file. Where do I go at commons to initiate a discussion on that file?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Nikkimaria, note that the the two cropped versions are a different issue on what may be necessary? I am in need of guidance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - What kind of discussion are you looking to start? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI, I have Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Questionable_file_licensing open.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - First thing I need to know is whether there is a chance that the crops can be justified since the discussion points don't appear visible in the reduced main image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Second, the other files are highlighting sourced content. How do I justify those? Are there other works where you can point me to exemplary FURs. The justification is a little different issue here since they are not crops.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Nikkimaria, can you direct me to a discussion forum page where I might get some general advice on FURs and NFCC for this article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:MCQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Waiting for feedback there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal and procedural archive. Before a FAC can proceed, @FAC coordinators: should determine that prior objections have been addressed. Multiple issues previously identified at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1 were not addressed before this nomination, including:

The issue of non-free images (the subject of a lengthy discussion above)
A commercial source (Sotheby's) used to cite commentary and price when it had the items for sale (not indeependent,and also see WP:NOTPRICE, WP:NOTCATALOG [2])
Unattributed opinion throughout, see the oddly labeled section, "Messages" for example
Uncited text was also raised at FAR: see "The" Premiere section (a section heading which breaches MOS)
MOS review needed (this was raised at FAR). Examples, the text refers to image placement throughout (see image above, image to the right). Inconsistent citation formatting still (eg what is the author name format). Page numbers on books missing on multiple.

In addition to those previously raised, unaddressed issues:

Odd unencyclopedic section headings: Message, Conclusion ?? Ampersand for "and" in a section heading ? "The" Premiere.

I suggest a well-attended peer review before this article returns to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandy. This is clearly not yet ready for FAC and so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. As well as PR - as Sandy suggests, a well-attended one would be best - a trip through GoCE may help.
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.