User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/Campbell's Soup Cans FAC issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are currently 6 WP:VA paintings listed at WP:FA: Las Meninas ◎ 4, The Garden of Earthly Delights ◎ 4 and The Third of May 1808 ◎ 5 all promoted in 2008, The Raft of the Medusa ◎ 5 promoted in 2009 and Drowning Girl ◎ 5 and Whaam! ◎ 5 both promoted in 2013. No current painting VAs have been promoted WP:FA since 2013. If you include all specific visual arts works vital articles, which includes 11 current WP:FAs and 3 WP:FFAs only one has been promoted to FA since 2013. Of the 4 VA4 FAs and 1 FFA, none have been promoted to FA since 2012. I wonder if the standards/expectations have changed making it difficult for important visual arts works like those at VA to make the list.

Recall that VA was not expanded to include WP:VA5 until 2017. In 2012, during the big Lichtenstein retrospective which was travelling at the Art Institute of Chicago (May 22–September 3, 2012), National Gallery of Art (October 14–January 13, 2013), Tate Modern (February 21–May 27, 2013), and Centre Pompidou (July 3–November 4, 2013), I did a lot of WP:DYK and WP:GA work while the exhibition was here in Chicago. In the subsequent weeks and months, I needed help getting some of them to WP:FA. With each subsequent FAC, more people got involved in the editing during the push towards FA.

Between the September 25, 2012 WP:PR and the successful December 24, 2012 WP:FAC for Look Mickey lots of editorial assistance from User:J Milburn, User:Ceoil, User:Kaldari, and User:MathewTownsend and FAC discussants User:Ceoil, User:Kaldari, User:Casliber and User:Sarastro1 enabled us to get a FAC.

Drowning Girl was a community effort with many people chipping in multiple edits between its June 15, 2013 WP:PR and July 23, 2013 WP:FAC promotion (User:Hiding, User:Lgfcd, User:Mr Stephen, User:Crisco 1492, User:Modernist, User:Another Believer, User:Rabinpm91). Crisco 1492, Hiding and Modernist were also instrumental as discussants at the FAC.

At Whaam! in 2013, there were great efforts between the July 15, 2013 PR, the failed August 12, 2013 FAC1 and the successful September 9, 2013 FAC2 with editorial contributions (User:Bus stop, User:Curly Turkey, User:Theramin, User:Werieth, User:Ewulp, User:Mr Stephen, User:Modernist, User:Indopug, User:Ceoil, User:Tenebrae, User:Pusancairo) and FAC discussants (User:Bus stop, User:Curly Turkey, User:Modernist, User:Masem, User:Ewulp and User:Ceoil).

In March 2020, both Whaam! and Drowning Girl became VA5. I don't know if people were getting on board because of the Lichtenstein retrospective, the prospects of a 50th anniversary WP:TFA ( which we sort of got with one of them), WP:OTD possibilities, or just to help out. In this case, Campbell's Soup Cans has already had its run at TFA because it is a WP:FFA. There is no retrospective motivation that I am aware of. CSC does not get the OTD attention like Whaam!, which has made OTD three times. Nonetheless, while Whaam! and Drowning Girl are both among the 152 works listed at VA5 under specific works: painting, Campbell's Soup Cans is among the 17 articles listed at VA4 specific works of painting. Both lists are contrivances of the ebbs and flows of the whims of VA voters, but one could say that CSC is an even more important painting than those others. I am going to need assistance getting this article back up to FA level. Help now is good. Help at another PR would be good. Help editing and as discussants are needed at FAC would be good. Below are recent comments (mostly from FAC3) that need to be considered to get this article over the hump. Please consider spending some time editing this important article or get involved during future PR and FAC discussions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I have just noticed that there have been a few WP:TFA re-runs according to this list. Since Andy Warhol ◎ 4 and Campbell's Soup Cans ◎ 4 are both VA4, and this is a WP:FFA, maybe a rerun with vastly expanded content would be considered for Warhol's 100th birthday on August 6, 1928.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I am just realizing that reruns are fairly common. There have been several hundred. We would have a very strong case at a 100th birthday rerun if we can repromote this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)


Comments from Noleander

  • Articles from academic journals? Many of the sources are books; and many are mass-market newspapers and magazines, which is okay. But I'm surprised there are not more from scholarly journals. E.g. from academics in the fields of Sociology? Art? Psychology? Media? Communications? Has a search been conducted for such sources (both from the 1960s/70s, and more recently?
    • I have added several sources from JSTOR in line, but I need to do some more work on the citation formating to incorporate both sections (resources and specific inline citations) jointly-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Interpretation section: Consider generalizing this to be interpretation and analysis: certainly many scholars, in and out of the art world have analyzed the art and its subsequent popularity ... what do they say? e.g. does the art reflect American consumerism, mass production? etc?
  • Reception section? Can the article contain a section that summarizes opinions of art critics regarding the work's merit, importance, and quality? (in contrast to "Interpretation" section which could focus on the meaning of the piece, the intention of the artist, and the interpretation by viewers).
    • At first I thought the article needed to split the current Interpretation section, but now I think it needs an additional section for reception.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Legacy section? Can the article contain a section a section on the long-term effect of the art? derivative works? Impact on other specific artists? Impact on the art world in general? etc.
    • I think I have done enough to satisfy this, although I suspect there may be more TV and movie references to be found.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Popular culture section? Can the article contain a section that explains to the reader how pervasive the art became within popular culture (how it is a meme of sorts, appearances in other media, homages, parodies, etc)
  • Interpretation section: Many of the statements should be attributed to the critic/scholar that is making the statement. Example (of several) Warhol clearly changed the concept of art appreciation. Unless there are multiple critics all uniformly espousing the same opinion, those kinds of statements should be attributed.
  • Prose in lead: There is some confusion because sometimes the later screen print sets ... The "There is some confusion" phrasing doesn't sound encyclopedic/professional to my ears. Who is confused? I'm not sure what the sources say, but maybe something like The general public often mistakes mass-market reprits for the original artwork .... but, again, I don't know what the sources say on this.
  • Lead paragraph: the final paragraph seems to be a mish-mash: There is some confusion because .... In addition, there is ongoing .... There are also varied explanations for this theme .... I gather this paragraph is trying to summarize controversial or confusing aspects of the artwork? It doesn't seem cohesive or encyclopedic. I'm not sure if the fix is to reword it, or to change the contents of that final paragraph to emphasize things like legacy, impact on other artists, etc.
  • Warhol is now understood to represent the modern era of commercialization and indiscriminate "sameness". That, and other sentences, needs to be re-written in encyclopedia's voice.
  • The work was intended to be without personality or individual expression. According to who? Intended by who?
  • Citations: help reader with links from Citation section to Book Sources section: Perhaps not required for FA, but it takes only a few minutes to convert all the book cites from <ref>Gopnik, p. 230.</ref> to <ref>{{harvnb|Gopnik|2020|p=230.}}</ref>. Readers benefit because they can click on the line in Citation and they will jump to the book in Sources section.

That's all I have. Noleander (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  • User:Noleander, I am looking for some advice. Do you think that there are sources that discuss the artistic excellence, the standing of the painting in terms of importance, or its "merit" as you described it. I can find commentary that manual elements of screenprinting contributes variances. Regarding importance, English Language WP considers it among the 17 most vital articles for editorial focus, This may be because ENWP readership skews a little bit toward Pop culture so its vitality for our encyclopedia might be a little bit skewed. The art world probably does not consider it to be one of the 17 most important specific works of painting in history. E.g., I was listening to a podcast (episode 102 of The Economics of Everyday Things) featuring Glenn Lowry, the Director of the Museum of Modern Art, who does not even mention it among the first four paintings in that museum for "contributing to the museum's visitor traffic". Along with the subject of the podcast (The Starry Night), he mentioned Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Dance and One: Number 31, 1950. In terms of excellence, I do not believe its significance, importance or vitality is due to its excellence. You don't stand in front of it and think "This work depicts a type technical skill rare among visual artists at the highest level" like you might when standing in front of David or the one VA4 work hosted here in Chicago where I live (A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte). I put in a request for assistance on this subject and the Librarian sent back a source that was interprectation if you asck me. The long and the short of it is that I am not sure, if it is really that important to separate our a reception from an interpretation. I would like some feedback from you in this regard before I evaluate how to proceed on this subect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from 19h00s

  • ...there are a lot of articles dedicated to Warhol's work in academic journals. This is actually one of the more difficult aspects of editing modern and contemporary visual arts articles. Art is a highly subjective topic with vast variations in editorial quality and approach for "art writing", a super broad term that can encompass everything from exhibition reviews and artist profiles in journals, magazines, and newspapers through to experimental non-academic works of criticism or analysis in books or specialty art publications. Because of that subjectivity, it's very important to also use academic sources that have been thoroughly checked for accuracy or strength of argument. Some journals I'd suggest searching first for analysis/coverage of these paintings: American Art (published by Smithsonian American Art Museum & UChicago Press), Archives of American Art Journal (published by AAA & UChicago Press), Oxford Art Journal (published by Oxford U Press), Art Journal (published by College Art Association & Routledge [Taylor & Francis]), and The Art Bulletin (published by College Art Association & Routledge [Taylor & Francis]). I believe American Art, Oxford Art Journal, and a few others are available through The Wikipedia Library. But beyond art history journals, these works, and their long-term impact on Western culture and cultural theory, have no doubt been discussed in a variety of other academic contexts, far beyond just art history.
    There is also, unfortunately, no deeply developed set of guidelines on reliable sourcing specific to visual arts. I've raised this before at the Visual Arts WP and actually started a go at building out a structure/sense of possible guidelines/explanations in my sandbox that could serve as a reference point for visual arts editors and a repository of current/historical perennial sources. --19h00s (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I would not consider an article about a notable work of art complete until I had included all major schools of thought about the work. For the article I wrote for Lynch Fragments, that manifested as like 5 or 6 paragraphs of analysis. For a work like Campbell's Soup Cans (again, one of the most discussed works in modern/contemporary art), you could easily fill half the article with critical interpretations/analysis and you'd still be missing a few strains of thought. Wikipedia shouldn't be exhaustive in that we don't need every single critic's take on those paintings, but there is such a volume of writing about the paintings that the article simply requires a larger amount of analysis. There could even be an argument that this work is so notable and so broadly discussed that the critical interpretations of the Campbell's Soup Cans require their own article. 19h00s (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
    I'd advise against splitting the article, mainly because nobody will find or read any daughter article, and so any info readers are searching for will be lost in obscurity. See here and search for "The consistently invoked 'summary style' does not mean"... plus, we have a very good TOC facility and 99% of readers use that to find what they are interested in; very, very few read top to bottom. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
    Hey User:Ceoil, I know you are a WP:FAC mentor and have a lot of editorial expertise in regards to art. I don't know that I am the person who should tackle the last issues left (interpretation and reception). Where do you think we stand with this article now? How would you proceed next from here?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI