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

Campbell's Soup Cans

Campbell's Soup Cans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans
• Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2

• Featured article review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive1

Notified: TonyTheTiger, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Museum of Modern Art, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City, [1]

Review section

This is a 2007 promotion that has been noticed since 2016, and again in December 2020, with no improvements made. Issues include, but are not limited to:

• 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:SANDWICHing.
• 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.
• An abundance of unattributed opinion.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a licensing expert, but by my count we have 11 items of non-free content as of this revision. While articles about modern art are going to have higher numbers of non-free works to fully explain the topic, I have my doubts that '11' meet the minimal number of items requirement in WP:NFCCP #3a. The two that catch my eye the most for removal to get this in line with the NFCC policy are the juice box, as not directly related, and one of the two torn label cans (my instinct being File:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg). The juice box one is used in two other articles, so removing it will only result in needing to update the fair use statement to indicate that it is no longer used in this article. But the two torn label ones are both used only in this article, so removing one will orphan it and set it up for delayed deletion, so it'll probably be better to FFD it. But then I'm worried we'll get a "But we can't delete Warhol" response at the FFD, even though I don't think two illustrations of "Warhol drew pictures of soup cans with torn labels" is compliant with NFCC. @Nikkimaria and Buidhe: - Y'all are better with licensing than I am, so what's all y'all's opinions about the NFCC situation here? Hog Farm _Talk 22:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking the more pieces of non-free content you have, the harder it becomes to justify each. 11 would require a whole lot of justification as to the specific value of each, and I don't see that here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the juice box image and am getting ready to nominate one of the torn label cans images at FFD. I hope I do not anger someone for attempting to delete modern art. Hog Farm _Talk 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And my removal has been reverted, so we're back up to 11. Hog Farm _Talk 23:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A number of these images can be removed as lacking contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8). Happy to weigh in on any nominated at FFD—just ping me. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've FFD'd the crushed can image per WP:NFCCP #8, and removed one of the two freely-licensed modern can images for space reasons. Images are a mess in this one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't speak images, but noting that a) this FA was passed in the era before serious image reviews started, and b) most of those images were not in the version that passed FACanyway. The article has an abundance of other issues, and saving its star will take quite an effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There are literally 12 "citation needed" and 5 "according to whom" templates on the page. This article needs improvement badly, and is not up to modern FA standards. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Query from talk about authenticity of article re silkscreening: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, no improvement, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - Minor improvement with some of the image/layout issues, but the big problems have not been touched. This needs a lot of work. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, layout, and style. DrKay (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delist The two editors who made significant changes, SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm, both endorsed FARC above. Other editors have not made significant improvements since its review started and citation needed templates need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - This needs a lot of work that simply isn't being done. Hog Farm _Talk 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - has depreciated, clearly no longer up to standard. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)