Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans

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 promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Campbell's Soup Cans edit

Many of the objections to this article have been rendered moot, and I'd like some fresh opinions, so I'm resetting this nomination. (old nom) Raul654 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mostly s~~Support, just two issues left about which I’m not quite happy: the Phases and Today sections are too short (merge under a common heading?) and the sentence ‘Most of the images on this page are from that phase.’ should be removed outright. —xyzzy_n 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion.

Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following section, from the lead

The combination of the semi-mechanized process, the non-painterly style, and the commercial subject
initially caused offense, as the work's blatantly mundane commercialism represented a direct affront
to the technique and philosophy of Abstract expressionism. The Abstract expressionism art movement
was dominant during the post-war period, and it held not only to "fine art" values and aesthetics
but also to a mystical inclination. This controversy led to a great deal of debate about the merits
and ethics of such work. Warhol's motives as an artist were questioned, and they continue to be
topical to this day. The public commotion helped transition Warhol from being an accomplished 1950s
commercial illustrator to a notable fine artist, and it helped distinguish him from other rising pop
artists. Although commercial demand for his paintings was not immediate, Warhol's association with
the subject lead to his name becoming synonymous with the Campbell's Soup can paintings.

needs citations. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- These sentences are summaries of the article that follows (because the lead is basically suppose to summarize the rest of the article). The first sentence is a sentence from my brain. The second is some help from Tyrenius. I don't know who contributed the others, but suspect that some of the help came from solid copyeditors TheQuandry and Ceoil.
- At one point I was told either to include one citation in each para of intro or none in any. Full inline citation of summary items from an indepth article are possibly a bit much to ask because even some sentences are combining thougthts of many cited statements below. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sentences in the lead do not require inline citations, a lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It is assumed that the statements are sourced elsewhere. If they're not, then that's a problem but unsourced statements in the lead are fine. Quadzilla99 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (previous objections have been addressed) ShadowHalo 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (previous objections have been addressed) Johnbod 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not clear as to the relations of the first 2 section headers with the topic (especially seeing the length of "New York art scene"). Also, it sounds like they should be merged into a single "Background" or "prior career" section. Circeus 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as fair use issues have been addressed.Balloonman 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Support as that seems to have worked well above. :-)
- devolped?
  - Done Heh. Either word works in the context, but I’ve picked ‘developed’ over ‘devolved’. —xyzzy_n 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the juice box under Motivation, when it's not referred to there (it's apparently first referred to under Pop art)?
  - moved Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- premier -> premiere, several places
  - Done —xyzzy_n 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- minor variation in the lettering of the variety names - too much space is spent on describing trivial distinctions. Condense to a few sentences and examples, please.
  - A matter of taste. Another editor may choose to reedit. I will stand pat on this. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pop art section seems overcited. Are these facts so controversial and likely to be disputed that every sentence needs one or two refs?
  - Most of the citations are navigational and directional in the sense that they either send people to internet or text resources for further details on the specific fact. It is really little harm to have a few superscript numbers sprinkled in to give direction on further details. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- responsorial? It's a word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means ...[1]
  - Done …more or less; couldn’t find a really good word that wouldn’t involve changing the sentence structure, though. —xyzzy_n 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- West Coast debut of Pop art; Warhol continued painting other pop art; ... - pick either upper or lower case Pop, and use it throughout the article
  - Pop -> pop Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (according to Marcel Duchamp)[48] - end of a sentence needs a period somewhere
  - Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Abstract expressionism art movement - don't capitalize the A, see that article
  - Abstract -> abstract Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (his career went through three distinct phases in which he expended a great deal of effort in this area) - vague and wordy. Rewrite, or just strike; it's explained in more detail in the article body.
  - reworded Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (Have copy edited the article). Per reasons give in my support of the previous nomination. Ceoil 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent stuff. Manderiko 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.