Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans

WP:GOCE

User:Dhtwiki, Does GOCE used T:AH anymore?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I am just going to add it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: That's not a template that I've ever used, although I'm vaguely aware of its existence. Its alternative use was once suggested by people who felt our regular GOCE template was too verbose, garish, or intrusive (feelings since mollified somewhat by our trimming it considerably). I'm glad you've let our template stand, while adding a mention of the copy edit to the article history template, as I seek the former out when I return to pages on my watchlist when I'm unsure of my copy editing involvement. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Dhtwiki, I am a proponent of liberal use of project templates.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keeping track of discussions for next FAC

• 1. Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2023/October#FUR_issues_at_Campbell's_Soup_Cans
  2. Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Additional_images_at_w:Campbell's_Soup_Cans
  3. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg
  4. Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Another_Campbell's_Soup_Cans_image_issue
  5. Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Double_checking_validity_of_Andy_Warhol_image_content

• Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans/GA1

  Template:Did you know nominations/Campbell's Soup Cans

  Wikipedia:Peer review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2

• Plus there was a WP:GOCE.

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Plus Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/06#Andy_Warhol's_soup_cans_(was:_Licensing_verification) -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Legacy section

• Soup, (2022) by Louise Lawler would be in the legacy section if I could source it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • AI has given me a paywalled source. I WP:AGF-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Supposedly, Dumbbell's Soup appears or is mentioned in many Simpson's episodes including "Bart the Genius", "Brush with Greatness", "Yokel Hero", and "The Longest Marge".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Also Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Silkscreen vs. handpainted

User:Ceoil, Actually, I am a bit confused myself. Is the outline silkscreened with the remaining elements handpainted?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• I had forgotten a lot of this. Now getting reacquainted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

February 2026 revamp

General

• Inserting a summary here this February 15 edit by User:Twixister removed 32,294 out of 111,823 bytes (28.9% reduction) and cut the article from 55030 to 30708 (44.2%) characters of readable prose (9044 words to 4873 words, 46.1%). I have been the main editor of the article since creating it in 2006. So I am trying to make sure that encyclopedic content is WP:PRESERVED. My comments below are with that in mind.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger @Twixister - Drive by comment from a user that participated in FAC review of this article a few months ago. On a procedural note: before deleting a large amount of material from an article, it is customary (but not required) to post a note on the Talk page and waiting a couple of days before doing the deletion. But that is water under the bridge, and it looks like editors are working collaboratively to improve the article. Let me know if I can help, for example, I'd be happy to provide a WP:Peer Review again (after the "Feb revamp" is over). Noleander (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• User:Twixister, First off, are you affiliated with Warhol or his Foundation?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I am realizing that this pursuit is going to eat up a lot of time. So before I go through the whole article. Can you generally explain your broad content removals. Usually we WP:PRESERVE content. Are you done? If not, do you plan to restore content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I am not affiliated with Warhol or his foundation. Twixister (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well thanks for caring enough to give it your very best. It could be viewed as if it had gotten a bit overgrown. I have been at the wheel of this article for 20 years. I guess it is time for me to buckle up and be a backseat driver for a while. I have been hoping to get the attention of others on this to give it a good run at WP:FAC before Warhol's 100th birthday. So let's get after this. As long as you are tending this article I will try my best to be constructive from my non-expert perspective.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  May I ask your art background?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

N

• Next, let me know if I can pursue a preliminary image review for an WP:FAC nomination. You have added several images, that we will need to assess the propriety of.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  The images are from Wikimedia Commons and the licensing information indicate that they are fine to use. Twixister (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Reviewers at FAC are very by the books and sometimes image contributors get a bit loosey goosey at Commons. My question is do you think you will be adding more image files (I just added 1342 Lex). Whatever set of images we will go with we would be well-served to bring an image review to the table of a nomination to make things go better.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

N

• You have removed content regarding the 1342 Lexington Avenue location that the paintings were made at. This seems quite non-sensical to me. You created an article for 1342 Lexington Avenue on February 11th and then removed the reference to it in this article on your February 15 chainsaw massacre of the article. You obviously feel 1342 Lex is important. What gives?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have added to the background section that the paintings were created "at his home studio located at 1342 Lexington Avenue." Twixister (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• I am now realizing that you removed many inflation adjustments. In some cases you hardcoded the inflation number rather than use the template. That is non-sensical. I have restore these myself with these two sets of edits . If there is a reason why you want to revert this content, we can discuss.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned this up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You have introduced some type of citation error. "Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTEWatson200326–27" was defined multiple times with different content "-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thx

Y

LEAD

• The preexisting WP:LEAD mentioned Duchamp who was named 4 times in the body of the article. The current version retains three mentions of Duchamp but has no mention in the LEAD. You still discuss the meaning of art in the LEAD, just wondering if the connection to Duchamp should be removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I assume you view the current presentation to be the best.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

• Also a WP:LEAD must either have all facts cited or uncited summaries of facts cited in the main body. You can't just cite one sentence.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I cited "Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are widely regarded as a canonical symbol of Pop art and one of the most influential bodies of art of the 20th century" because it succinctly summarizes the substance of the article. While that exact phrasing does not appear verbatim in the source, the claim is fully supported by the cited evidence. I also reinstated the earlier citations documenting the exhibition dates and the timeline of when the paintings were created. Twixister (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are a lot of stranded facts hanging off the ends of paragraphs without citations. You must either cite every fact or none of them. Look through the LEAD and identify which groups of words state a unique fact and make sure that fact has a citation or remove all citation in the WP:LEAD. In either case all facts in the main body must have WP:ICs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  You just need to use the same citation that you use in the main body. You should not have to find citations or anything.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Point remains unresolved. If you need me to I can add {{fact}} tags to each fact in the LEAD that is uncited. WP:LEAD still says that the LEAD has the same standards as the rest of the text. I.e., any fact must be cited. Currently the first and third paragraphs have two ending sentences without citations. So we are out of line in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  At some point I will just remove all the citations in the WP:LEAD, if you don't get around to this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Y After severa days with no response, I have removed the WP:ICs from the half of the facts that were cited in the WP:LEAD per LEAD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• The preexisting LEAD's 4th paragraph touched on many issues that are no longer mentioned in the LEAD. It read as follows: "The later screen print sets are sometimes confused as part of the original series. In addition, there is ongoing production and sale of unauthorized screen prints, of what is legally Warhol's intellectual property, as a result of a falling out with former employees. The series has a continuing legacy in pop culture, in derivative work by other artists and with multi-million dollar sales in the resale market. The popular explanation of his choice of the soup cans theme is that an acquaintance inspired the original series with a suggestion that brought him closer to his roots." Issues:

1. Screen print confusion no longer mentioned

   Is the confusion still in the main body though? The LEAD can only present/summarize facts with no more detail than is in the main body.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@::handled.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Y

2. Screen print unauthorized versions no longer mentioned

   Thx for looking into this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   Y

3. The sentence "The series has a continuing legacy in pop culture, in derivative work by other artists and with multi-million dollar sales in the resale market." is sort of rolled into "Campbell's Soup Cans are widely regarded as . . . one of the most influential bodies of art of the 20th century." Is that all we get now?

   Thx for looking into this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   Y

4. No inspiration discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   Please confirm that you have considered the inspirations element and consider it to be below the proper threshhold of importance for LEAD inclusion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   N.B. that the current version has incorrectly cobbled together an influence section that conflates potential influences on Warhol to create the series with the series' influence on others.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   I just fixed this myself.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   I revised the paragraph to the following: "Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are widely regarded as a canonical symbol of Pop art and one of the most influential bodies of art of the 20th century. The later sets of screenprints are sometimes confused with the original 1962 series, and unauthorized prints have also circulated, complicating the work's legacy and intellectual property status. Despite this, the series has maintained a lasting presence in popular culture, inspiring derivative works by other artists and achieving multimillion-dollar results in the art market" Twixister (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   I think you are missing the direction of the inspiration that I am pointing out. I am pointing out possible inspirations for Warhol (Stella, Klein, DeKooning). I have moved this because you had move the content to an area where the inspiration was going the other direction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   YYou seem to have accepted some of my tinkering in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Early Career

• Why did you delink Glamour (magazine) in the opening paragraph?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  That was an oversight; Glamour magazine has now been linked. Twixister (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You removed mention of the New York Public Library's photo collection from the opening paragraph. Why?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Initially, I removed the specific reference to the New York Public Library because Warhol was also tracing photographs taken by Edward Wallowitch during that period, and I thought the broader term "photographs" would encompass all of his source material. However, in light of the cited sources, I have restored and clarified the references. The revised paragraph now reads: "Warhol moved to New York City in 1949 after studying at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, and quickly found success as a commercial illustrator, with his first published drawing appearing in Glamour that same year. As a student at Carnegie Tech, Warhol developed his signature "blotted line" technique from tracing images on paper and blotting the wet ink to create irregular, variable lines. Using this technique, he duplicated and varied motifs, often drawing on images from the New York Public Library. Warhol held his first gallery exhibition in 1952 at the Bodley Gallery and, throughout the 1950s, regularly showed drawings and exhibited at institutions including the Museum of Modern Art in 1956. He subsequently used photographs taken by his one-time lover Edward Wallowitch as source material for his drawings, notably his self-published A Gold Book (1957)." Twixister (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thx for the delicate hand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You have created the uncited paragraph "Warhol was wavering between the action painting of abstract expressionisms, with its use of drips and brushstrokes.", which is a red flag.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I did not add that sentence; it was already present in the article without a citation. I have since located a source, revised the wording for clarity, and incorporated it as the opening to the following paragraph. It now reads: "During this period, Warhol was wavering between action painting and abstract expressionism, with his style of drip painting." Twixister (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well if two or three sentences are followed by an inline citation, it probably means that all of them are covered by the citation. The fact that a single sentence did not have a WP:IC does not mean it had no citation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You have removed the negative critical assessment content by Kirk Varnedoe?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your consideration on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• Kirk Varnedoe's assessment was moved to the Interpretation and analysis section. Twixister (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Currently, Varnedoe's rebuke is included redundantly in two locations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Seems good now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You removed all discussion of earlier attempts of Campbell's Soup Cans (Everything after the first citation of the preexisting main body Pop Art subsection 2nd Paragraph) and the next paragraph talk about pencil tracings.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Y

• Do you think the Art Gallery of Ontario confusion is unencyclopedic?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  This information was moved to the Variations section; it's the 3rd paragraph. Twixister (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Lot's of details were lost in the bathwater here. For starters the Fleur-de-lis detail is quite encyclopedic. So is mentioning projections. The comparison of acrylic versus more normal oil pain was also lost.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  The following sentence has now been incorporated into the 4th paragraph of the Background section: "Warhol used a rubber stamp to apply the gold fleur-de-lis near the lower portion of each image and worked with commercial-grade acrylic paint rather than the oil paint more typical of fine art." Twixister (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  • I am going to need to be convinced why you continue to exclude the certain details in favore of more glossed over statements. I.e., it formerly said "He used the rubber stamp for the gold fleur-de-lis towards the lower part of each image" and "He used commercial grade acrylic paint, rather than an oil paint more common in high art.", which you have rolled into "Experimenting with hand painting, stenciling, and rubber stamps, he began to standardize his process using acrylic paint and serial repetition."

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• • • Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• An extensive paragraph on the politics of early 1960s gallery representation (Leo Castelli is now totally removed from the article) of Warhol and his peers seems to be lost. Is this non-encyclopedic? Is it more suited to his bio (if so don't just leave content by the side of the road. Please WP:PRESERVE)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Many of the paragraphs about galleries and Warhol's peers felt tangential to the subject. They crowded the section with dated, highly specific details that were not essential to understanding the Campbell's Soup Cans series, making the article difficult to follow as it jumped back and forth chronologically. It began to read less like background for this body of work and more like a standalone account of Warhol's early career or even a broader history of Pop Art.

  For clarity and readability, especially for general readers, the Background section should remain concise and focused on information directly relevant to the series. The sources are there for those who want deeper context, but the article itself should prioritize clear, streamlined presentation. I've retained a brief reference to his rejection from the Leo Castelli Gallery for context and will incorporate the fuller details into the main Andy Warhol article instead. Twixister (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have moved some gallery politics to Warhol, but some of this should go there too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is addressed in the second paragraph: "Yet he remained behind some of his peers in securing gallery representation. Having been rejected by the Leo Castelli Gallery for similarities in his work to the style of comics done by Roy Lichtenstein, Warhol was seeking a distinct direction within the emerging Pop art movement." There is no need to expand further into the broader history of Pop art or detail the accomplishments of his peers. The section should remain streamlined and focused specifically on Warhol's circumstances and artistic trajectory leading up to the Campbell’s Soup Can series. Twixister (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• The paragraph showing Warhol was late to the pop art party is now absent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I think your presentation has reduced this in a very protective manner. I don't think an objective presentation would have removed the fact that he trailed his peers, which helps define his motivation. Also, the fact that he had only successfully presented Pop art as a decorator/illustrator at first is important.

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• • • YLet me present different angle on this. In the article we mention that following the show he was rejected from a gallery that previously committed to him. However, you have removed the point that a gallery that previously rejected him showed him twice in the mid-1960s (Castelli), which surely must have something to do with how topical his art became.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
      • Content WP:PRESERVEd in bio.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

      That detail isn’t directly relevant to the Background section as structured. Warhol did not exhibit at the Leo Castelli Gallery until 1964, with the Flowers series, which is well after the 1962 Campbell's Soup Can paintings. His earlier rejection was tied to similarities to Roy Lichtenstein, and by the time he showed at Castelli, his style had already evolved. Because of that, bringing in the mid-1960s Castelli exhibitions creates a chronological jump that interrupts the narrative rather than clarifying it. For the purposes of the Background section, it's more effective to keep the focus on Warhol's position prior to 1962 and the circumstances leading directly to the Campbell's Soup Can series. Those later exhibitions are already covered in the main Andy Warhol article, where they fit more appropriately. Twixister (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

    • YYou mention the 1950s Bodley content but not the 1960s stuff.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
      • I don't see this in the bio and Bodley Gallery has not been edited in over 6 months.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

        The following has now been added to the main Warhol article in the paragraph about him unable to secure gallery representation: "Out of desperation, Warhol considered returning to the Bodley Gallery, but its director dismissed his new paintings as 'ridiculous.'" Twixister (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

        Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

    • YWhat about the 1961 Allan Stone show?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
      • Content WP:PRESERVEd in bio.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    • YWhat about this content "As revolutionary as pop art was, Warhol's 1962 Soup Cans were not at the tip of the spear for pop art. In 1960, Jasper Johns had exhibited Painted Bronze (1960), a Ballantine beer can sculpture. In 1961, Roy Lichtenstein had introduced his Benday dot newspaper advertisements and comic strips works, and Claes Oldenburg preseented his "The Store" installation, which he had exhibited since 1958. Johns and Robert Rauschenberg introduced Pop Art and Lichtenstein and Oldenberg were the first to refine its direction.[31] In 1961, Warhol was lagging his art world peer group in terms of accomplishment. However, as a window decorator and shoe illustrator, he had often used pop culture elements to fill in scenes.[32]"?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

      Including that level of detail in the Background section is unnecessary and risks overcomplicating the narrative. While the comparison to figures like Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg, and Robert Rauschenberg is valid in a broader art historical sense, it shifts the focus away from Andy Warhol and introduces more context than is needed for this particular article.

      • Is this unencyclopedic content, or does it belong in bio, Pop art or YYYY in art? Have you WP:PRESERVEd this elsewhere?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

        • I missed "Yet he remained behind some of his peers in securing gallery representation." I guess this is sufficient for this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

      For clarity and readability—especially for general readers—the Background section should remain concise and centered on information directly relevant to Warhol's development leading into the series. A brief mention that he had not yet secured the same level of gallery representation as some of his peers, along with the note about his rejection from the Leo Castelli Gallery, is sufficient to establish his position at the time. Expanding into a wider survey of Pop art risks creating a digression that interrupts the flow of the article.

      Additionally, this broader contextual material is already covered in the main Andy Warhol article, where readers can find a more detailed discussion of his relationship to contemporaries and the emergence of Pop art. Keeping that material there avoids redundancy and helps maintain a streamlined structure in this entry.

      Regarding Allan Stone, since he only offered Warhol a three-man exhibition—which Warhol declined—it does not significantly contribute to the narrative here and is better left in the main biographical article. Twixister (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• So is the paragraph discussing early visitors to see Warhol's pop art.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, which includes the Time magazine feature. Twixister (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

• Content regarding the May 11, 1962, Time magazine article "The Slice-of-Cake School" has been drastically reduced. The flavor seems to have been lost. Let's discuss.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • There were almost 2 whole paragraphs on this point. Please comment on the stuff you left out.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

    I think the reference to the Time article is still adequately represented, just in a more focused and relevant way. The fourth paragraph of the Background section explicitly mentions the May 11, 1962 article “The Slice-of-Cake School,” noting that Warhol was “currently occupied with a series of ‘portraits’ of Campbell’s soup cans in living colour,” and includes his quote: “I just paint things I always thought were beautiful, things you use every day and never think about...I’m working on soup...I just do it because I like it.” In that sense, it actually provides more directly relevant information than before. The previous version emphasized the broader context of the article’s featured artists, which isn’t especially necessary for an article focused on Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans. The current revision keeps the emphasis on Warhol himself and how he was framed at the time.

    Similarly, the revision in the Interpretation and analysis section condenses the Time description into clearer language while preserving its meaning, describing artists who treated “the most banal and even vulgar trappings of modern civilization” as legitimate subjects for high art. So while some of the earlier phrasing has been reduced, the key ideas and now the most relevant quotations from the Time article are still present, just more streamlined and directly tied to the subject. Twixister (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• You decontextualized the gallery offer in a very simplified manner.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • YOK Now-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Premiere

• You mentioned Warhol's absence, but decontextualized it by removing the opinion that it might be a bit of a consolation prize.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I need a response here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

    I don’t think that interpretation is necessary to include. Warhol simply did not attend, and unless Irving Blum or Warhol himself provided a specific reason, adding speculation such as framing it as a “consolation prize” introduces opinion rather than verifiable information. It seems more appropriate to keep the statement factual and avoid unnecessary interpretation. Twixister (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• John Coplans seems like an important commentator of the day. Why did you remove that content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I need a response here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't remove John Coplans as a commentator because he was unimportant. I reviewed his article in the November 1962 issue of Artforum, and it is actually a review of Warhol's S&H Green Stamps painting rather than the exhibition at the Ferus Gallery. Coplans only briefly references the soup can images in passing, writing that Warhol had "now famous Campbell soup images," but he does not discuss the works or mention the Ferus Gallery show itself. Because the Critical reception section is meant to summarize reviews of the Campbell's Soup Can paintings, I instead added the Artforum review by Henry T. Hopkins from the September 1962 issue, which directly addresses the Ferus Gallery exhibition. Twixister (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • • YThanks for your delicate hand. Very understandable explanation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• I think we should retain the point that the exhibition was lightly attended but widely commented on (the former third paragraph of this section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I need a response here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

    I think that point is already preserved in the current structure. The former third paragraph noted that “talk did not translate into monetary success,” and that idea is now reflected in the second paragraph of the Ferus Gallery exhibition section, which includes the detail about Dennis Hopper being one of only a handful of buyers. So while the wording has changed, the substance—that the show generated attention but limited sales—remains covered. Twixister (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

    Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Do you really think it is better to treat his first New York Times review by burying it among ordinary critical reception content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I need a response here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

    I don't think it is being buried. It appears in the appropriate Critical reception section, which is where reviews are typically summarized in Wikipedia articles. Using sections helps make the article more navigable and allows readers to find information quicker; in this case the Critical reception section follows directly after the Exhibition section, so the material flows logically. It is also worth noting that the August 1962 New York Times review referred to the group exhibition at the Wadsworth Atheneum, not Warhol's solo exhibition at the Ferus Gallery. Twixister (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

    • For an artist like this, the point at which he became notable enough for a NYT review seems to be an encyclopedic element that should be WP:PRESERVEd. In fact the way you presented it, would make it clear that the NYT did not even review the Ferus show. Thoughts?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

      Yes, The New York Times did not review the Ferus Gallery show itself, though the critic did discuss Warhol's Campbell's Soup imagery. It's also worth noting that this Wikipedia article primarily concerns the 32 Campbell's Soup Cans, but during that same short period Warhol was producing several related variations that were appearing in museum exhibitions. That is why this page has so much information on various paintings within the broader series. The review specifically covered the exhibition American Painting and Sculpture from Connecticut Collections at the Wadsworth Atheneum, which opened in July 1962—less than 2 weeks after the Ferus Gallery show. In that show, Warhol's Big Campbell's Soup Can with Can Opener (Vegetable) was his only painting included, but the critic discussed Warhol's Campbell's Soup imagery in plural terms, referring to the body of work more broadly rather than just that single canvas, which is why I initially placed it in the Critical reception section rather than the Variations section. However, for clarity and accuracy, I've now created a subsection for Big Campbell's Soup Can with Can Opener (Vegetable) (1962) within the Variations section and moved the review there. I have also made the Art market section a subsection of Variations, as none of the original 32 Campbell's Soup Cans have entered the market; the sales cited pertain to related variations from the series. Twixister (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

      Y OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  • P.S. you did a good job at finding critical commentary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• The movement of the Martha Jackson cancellation to after the November exhibition changes history. The prior version makes clear the cancellation was for backlash to the Ferus Gallery show (that ended in August) not the November show.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • This must be addressed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

    I've now moved that information to the first paragraph of the Subsequent early exhibitions section and added details clarifying that the cancellation occurred while Warhol's exhibition at the Ferus Gallery was still on view. Twixister (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

    • • YThx for your expertise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• What about the Gary Indiana content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  This has been moved to the Interpretation and analysis section along with the assessment from Kirk Varnedoe. Twixister (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The Campbell's Soup Company

• You say, "U.S. Supreme Court opinions suggested he likely would have prevailed", but only presented one of the two opinions from the old version.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have added the second Supreme Court Justice opinion. Twixister (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• why did you remove the $ amount of the commission?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Inspiration

• You have added a lot of imagery. What is your thinking behind the removal of File:Campbell tomato soup ad 1968.jpg? I concede that File:Campbell's Tomato Soup -1927A.jpg is a better selection if you have to choose one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  My reasoning was that the 1968 Campbell's soup can illustration by John Alcorn was not actually an advertisement but a promotional poster. The text at the bottom includes mail-in instructions inviting people to send in soup can labels to receive the poster. Because of that, I moved the image to Alcorn's page and replaced it in the article with an example of an actual Campbell's advertisement. Twixister (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • YAt first blush it is not much different from the Souper dress in that regard, but I guess we have no evidence that this poster has any legacy as a part of a notable collection. I guess you made the right call. I just wanted to understand it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• I know Ted Carey is not notable, but there is some relevant content there. Thoughts?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Please comment here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  That material is already addressed in the 4th paragraph of the Inspirations section: "One widely repeated story credits Muriel Latow, who allegedly advised him in late 1961 to paint 'something you see every day and that everybody would recognize—like a can of Campbell's Soup,' for which she was paid $50." The various "he said/she said" anecdotes about the origin of the idea are essentially variations of this same account, which can be summarized by noting that Muriel Latow suggested the concept to Warhol. Twixister (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • YThx for the explanation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Interpretation and analysis

• You did a pretty good job with this section. A lot of it is above my paygrade.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Reception

• The prior version took a stab at separating out a reception section from the interpretation and analysis. This was at the encouragement of User:Noleander who felt that the "merit, importance, and quality" could be presented separately from the describing the art and its subsequent popularity.
  • You seem to have nixed having this section proximal to the interpretation and analysis. You have relocated the section and changed the section title from reception to critical reception, which sounds good. You have greatly expanded it. Kudos-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• User:19h00s wanted a presentation of the "major schools of thought about the work".
• I am not sure what to make of this. Please comment-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  In my opinion, this refers to distinct perspectives or interpretations, which are exemplified by the scholarly viewpoints presented in the Interpretation and analysis section. Twixister (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  • YYou have certainly broadened the article along those lines.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Variations

• You have transformed "They were insured as a set and the insurance company paid $750,000 ($1006136 in 2025), once the museum turned over the remaining three screen prints." into "The remaining works were insured as a group for $750,000 ($1.01 million in 2025)", which seems inaccurate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the cited articles and revised the paragraph accordingly, clarifying that the museum received a $750,000 insurance payout. Twixister (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You left the dangling unsourced WP:OR statement "The prints have since become highly collectible." on the end of the paragraph after removing all the content about their value. I.e., the prior version included "Each of the screen prints had an estimated value of $30,000 ($40245 in 2025), according to Artnet author Blake Gopnik. A National Public Radio source estimates that they generally sold for up to $45,000 ($60368 in 2025), but the tomato soup version could sell for $100,000 ($134151 in 2025)."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been added: "Writing for Artnet News, Warhol biographer Blake Gopnik described the Springfield screen prints as comparatively modest in value, estimating them each at around $30,000 ($40245 in 2025). However, the National Public Radio reported typical prices of up to $45,000 ($60368 in 2025), with the tomato soup version reaching as much as $100,000 ($134151 in 2025)." Twixister (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

• You left out a lot of details regarding 200 Campbell's Soup Cans.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added information on the medium of the paintings. Kindly note that I had moved the information about Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato Rice) (1961) possibly being the earliest painting to the final sentence of the first paragraph in the Variations section, since the cited book discusses it in relation to the overall Campbell's Soup Can series rather than specifically to 200 Campbell's Soup Cans. Twixister (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

Legacy

• Great work expanding this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Y

Pop culture

• Supposedly, Dumbbell's Soup appears or is mentioned in many Simpson's episodes including "Bart the Genius", "Brush with Greatness", "Yokel Hero", "Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart", and "The Longest Marge". Would you happen to be a Simpson's fan with access to past episodes. Maybe we could mark a time in each episode when the Dumbbell's Soup appears.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Also need a response here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was only able to find reliable citations for two The Simpsons episodes: "Brush with Greatness" and "Mom and Pop Art." There may well be additional, more obscure references, but it doesn't seem necessary to document every instance in the series where a Campbell's Soup–style painting briefly appears in the background. I've added one additional example, which I think sufficiently demonstrates the broader cultural references. The sentence now reads: "There are several references in the animated sitcom The Simpsons, including the 1991 episode 'Brush with Greatness,' in which Warhol's 'Campbell's Soup Can' is seen in an art gallery, and the 1999 episode "Mom and Pop Art," which depicts Warhol tossing soup cans at Homer Simpson." Twixister (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Y Fair enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• User:Twixister, I am hoping for a few more cogent thoughts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Can you clarify what you're referring to? Twixister (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  User:Twixister, Sorry I missed your response. There are 5 or 6 red x's above that I am trying to make sure we have come to a right decision on. If you could reply to them above that would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Confirming that I have addressed your concerns. Twixister (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  User:Twixister, one last set of specific content removal-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Twixister Thanks for your efforts.

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Campbell's Soup Cans

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been revamped significantly, going from 111,823 bytes to 79,529 bytes overnight on February 15 and then back to 105,463 bytes today. This represented 55,030 to 30,708 (44.2%) characters of readable prose (9,044 words to 4,873 words, 46.1%) overnight and restoration to the current version of 44,010 characters (6,937 words). I.e. 28.9% reduction in bytes, 44.2% recution of characters and 46.1% reduction in words overnight. Then through a deliberative process the reductions were scaled back to 5.7% in bytes, 20% in characters and a 23.3% in words.

I am trying to assess where the article stands in terms of readiness for a WP:FAC review in its current form. I am requesting a seperate image assessment, so I guess you should focus on the prose.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

Hi again. I'm happy to help get this article ready for FAC. As a start, can you provide a very brief indication of changes made to address the following points that were raised in the prior FAC3? That would give me a good data to start with before a do another go-through in this PR.

• 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?
  • Your comment came on August 6 and the nom was closed on August 9. Between those dates many journal articles were added including the following: , , 2nd use of same source, later removed, later removed, , , , , -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • User:Twixister may have added others during the Feb revamp.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:38, 29 March 2026 (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?
  • This section seems to have been renamed as suggested before FAC3 closed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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).
  • During the Feb revamp, Campbell's_Soup_Cans#Critical_reception was created.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 29 March 2026 (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.
  • It has gone from 1 paragraph to 12 paragraphs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 29 March 2026 (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)
  • From zero to 6 paragpraphs. I do admit that we have only been able to source 2 of the Simpsons episodes that it has been referenced in, but I am pretty sure it has referenced in 5 or 6 episodes in varying degrees of focus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    • BTW, work on this section made it clear to me why this is probably an appropriate selection as one of the 17 specific works or series of paintings listed at WP:VA4. For a specific work to have both Vans and Chuck Taylor editions shocked me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Half of the paragraphs now lead with an attribution.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Prose in lead: .... Is the lead now FA quality?
  • I would say that the difference between the August 9 lead and the current one has mostly come from the Feb revamp by User:Twixister. I would say it is very on point now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Warhol clearly changed the concept of art appreciation. "clearly", when written in encyclopedia's voice is a bit WP:PEACOCK. But would be okay if attributed to a particular critic/person.
  • Now attributed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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.
  • I had given it a shot and then User:Twixister changed the voice of the whole article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• The work was intended to be without personality or individual expression. According to who? Intended by who?
  • User:Twixister has rephrased this point With the Campbell's Soup Cans and related series, he sought to affirm the visual language of mass production while stripping away overt emotion, gesture, and personal expression. with the same sources and then added a different source that is attributed to critics in general: Warhol's stark, industrial images seemed cold and impersonal-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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.
  • done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• ... Art articles that may be somewhat comparable: American Gothic, Nighthawks (Hopper), The Starry Night, or The Garden of Earthly Delights The latter, which is FA, has a "Legacy" section, an "Interpretation" section and a "Sources and context", so perhaps that one could serve as a rough model for the Soup Cans article? (not to say those precise sections, but something like that).
  • Legacy section is now substantial.
  • Nighthawks (Hopper) doesn't now and didn't in August of 2025 have a sources section. Like the current Campbell's article, American Gothic has a book sources list section. The Starry Night has a sources list section that also contains some journal articles. The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights#Sources_and_context may be similar to Campbell's_Soup_Cans#Background. The latter has a sources list section with books and journal articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  User:Twixister, do you have any thoughts on a revamp of the sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Nominators/contributors: Have you and User:Twixister had a discussion about who the FAC nominator(s) will be? I believe the FAC guidelines require that sort of discussion when there are two primary contributors. I've seen FA nominations terminated because the 2nd-largest contributor nominated it without notifying the 1st-largest. I'm sure everything is fine ... but the purpose of PR is to get everything in order for the FAC, so I need to ask the question.   No need to reply here in the PR ... I'm only pointing out this issue so you'll be prepared in case the question arises during the FA review.
  • This communication has been one-way. I have mentioned a few times that we want to get this to FA before Warhol's 100th b-day or that this is article has FA aspirations. I have not heard any sort of responding interest in such a nomination. Currently, User:Twixister is above me by authorship and below me by edits and added text. So it is not even clear who is 1st largest contributor. I am interested in a co-nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you have tried to initiate a discussion then you have done all you need to do, and you have nothing to worry about during the FA nomination. Noleander (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Consider running the "Show Ref check" tool, it shows some P vs PP errors e.g
  • p. 27–28. -> should be pp
  • p. 89–90. -> should be pp

If you need help finding the tool, I can try to track down where it is.

User:Noleander, That would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger - The "Show Ref Check" tool is at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js with documentantion at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck. After you install it, you can view any article in a web browser; then click the "Tools" menu at top of page; and click the "Show Ref Check" item in the menu; then look at the References section at the bottom of the article. Noleander (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Consider running the "Hightlight Unreferencd Passages" tool, it shows cite missing at
  • The image evoked both routine and memory, blending autobiography with mass production.
    • This is a new post-revamp passage. Hopefully User:Twixister can address this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The soup cans ultimately became both an intimate reference point and a defining emblem of American consumer culture.
    • This is a new post-revamp passage. Hopefully User:Twixister can address this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've now added a citation to this sentence. Twixister (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  • • Thx for handling both of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It is 100% certain that FA reviewers will require cites on those sentences.

• Consider using the "location" field more consistently for all Book citations. Currently, there are 4 books that have the "location" specified, and 31 do not. Consider removing the 4 locations to make them all consistent.

• All source titles must use the same capitalization rule. This article is now using a mixture:
  • Title case: "Campbell Canada and The Andy Warhol Foundation Inspire Canadians to Brighten their Day with Pop Art"
  • Sentence case: "Soup maker out to dish up new Warhol: ..."
    • Both of these are now fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    • fixed many others.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

As of Summer 2025, WP:CITEVAR requires articles to use a consistent algorithm for source titles (and ignore how the sources capitalize their own titles).

• "Alt" text is mandatory for all images. Most images are missing alt text e.g.
  • Condensed Campbell's Soup cans, 2005
  • 1965 multi-colored versions from the Milwaukee Art Museum collection
  • Warhol's grave festooned with Campbell's soup cans at St. John the
  • ... etc ...

When writing the alt text, see WP:ALT which says that the alt text should describe the visual content of the image (what is in the image) ... and should NOT repeat the caption. E.g. alt = "Two red and white soup cans placed side by side. One labeled "Tomato" and one labeled "Chicken Noodle"

• • • Alt text added.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wording "Some sources mistakenly describe the original set of 32 Campbell's Soup Cans as silkscreens, contributing to ongoing confusion..." the word "sources" there is not ideal. Consider re-casting those 2 or 3 sentences to first state the truth, and then state the myth. Example: The medium used by Warhol when painting the original series was acrylic on canvas. Many descriptions of the series erroneously state that the originals were silk screened, an error which has been frequently repeated"....
  • I just handled this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Total number of prints/paintings? Do any sources give a grand total number? I see the sentence "By 1982, he had created more than 100 renderings, ranging in size from intimate 20-inch canvases to monumental works nearly 6 feet tall..." which cannot include all the prints, because below that it says there were some printing that had 100 or 200 signed prints. So, including signed prints, the total must be up in the several hundreds. If any sources give a grand total, readers will want to know.
  • User:Noleander I don't think people in the art world count each element of a signed print run uniquely in a tally of works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• That is all I have for PR. Because the work is so famous, it may draw significant attention at WP:FAC, so you may want to search for art-expert WP editors (that are familiar with FA) and ask them to do an additional Peer Review before nominating at FAC. It is a great article on an iconic piece of art! Noleander (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• User:Twixister, can you assist on some of these issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• User:Noleander, should this review be archived now? I.e., is it done?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I have no further suggestions. Good luck with the article! Noleander (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@TonyTheTiger: I added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Post FAC3 discussions

Above is a listing of discussions prior to the last FAC at #Keeping track of discussions for next FAC.

• User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/Campbell's Soup Cans FAC issues
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#45%_removal_of_content_at_Campbell's_Soup_Cans_◎_4
• Talk:Campbell's_Soup_Cans#February_2026_revamp
• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2026/March#Campbell's_Soup_Cans
• c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/03#Campbell's_Soup_Cans
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive4
• The latter two are currently active.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Potentially unresolved at FAC4

Following the closed FAC4, I received the following commentary on my talk page: Hey, just a response to your last comment. Yes, those were addressed, but the reason I was listing them was to establish that I had identified a number of issues with TSI, and that it was reasonable to assume I would find much more of the same in the parts of the article I hadn't reviewed. That's why I have asked for either (or both) of you to go over the rest and weed out any of those issues before I continue. There's a two week hiatus before this can be resubmitted to FAC -- I am confident in that time that the rest of the article can be checked over for TSI issues, put up at peer review where I will knock out the rest of the review, and come into another go at FAC with an immediate support. I'm hoping some momentum can be maintained, I'm looking forward to seeing this with a bronze star. Whonting (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I have dug through the FAC to attempt to see what is unresolved. User:Twixister, these are issues that you might be closer to because of your revamp of the article. Are any of these things that are too onerous?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Not required for FA, but a number of sources in "Book sources" aren't used (visible with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors) or could be linked at the Internet Archive (e.g. About modern art : critical essays, 1948-1997 and The films of Andy Warhol : catalogue raisonné, many more are possible). Particularly convenient for reviewers at FAC.
• Campbell's tomato soup evoked both routine and memory, blending autobiography with mass production. This kind of analysis is inappropriate for wikivoice, as is the tone. Moreover, I don't really see it as directly supported by the source, or at least the Guardian one.
• "Warhol later recalled a personal connection to Campbell's tomato soup" Warhol, who often lied about his biography, should have MOS:SAID applied more stringently here around "recalled". Indeed, on his reminiscence that "Many an afternoon at lunchtime Mom would open a can of Campbell's for me", Gopnik says "His actual childhood didn't involve... cans of Campbell's Soup". I see this is being used to support "At times, the family could not even afford to splurge on Campbell's soup" -- Gopnik makes clear that when they didn't have watered-down ketchup, they were having homemade rather than canned soup. The same in the next line "regarded as doubtful that his family had Campbell's soup often" -- the source is essentially saying never.
• In general this section [Julia was a soupmaker section] appears quite credulous. Reviewing the sources, a more detached approach would be more accurate, reporting what was said, what the evidence for it was so on. Closer adherence to MOS:SAID would help. I can elaborate if needed.
• The treatment in Interpretation and analysis is troubling. To begin, I don't know what is intended by distinguishing interpretation and analysis. The first sentence opens on "Warhol embraced ordinary consumer culture", which is contradicted directly by Bourdon 1989, who reacts to audiences asking "was he for or against mass production, consumerism, and advertising" with "it was not Warhol's style to take positions". The sentence itself, saying that Warhol "believed Abstract expressionism had deliberately ignored the vitality of modern life" does not appear to be in the source.
• Pausing as I am seeing a few issues with WP:TSI. Have a go at ensuring text-source integrity is achieved and I'll continue looking over. And again, well done on this article as it stands. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Twixster for these, much appreciated. Tony, I do think tensions falls under TSI (even if marginally), but the more substantive cited issues in the second batch included "despite speculation", "vitality of modern life" and the contradictory treatment between sources in this section, "scholarly opinion", much of the section on Warhol and childhood soups, and potentially routine and memory (hence my query). This is getting dragged out a bit, I'll reiterate that I'm happy to continue once this is done, and I'm also happy for other reviews such as Noleander to look at these examples, not find my assessment that source treatment issues appear persistent and the rest of the article should be checked, and conduct their own reviews. Ping me in when / if such a check is conducted and I'll jump back in. Whonting (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  P. S. routine and memory are not obvious issues to me immediately. Possibly some further direction there could be helpful.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)