Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans II

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 02:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol and a dog

• ... that a Hot Dog Bean screenprint from Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans II sold for $258,046 in 2013? Source: https://www.altaninsights.com/blog-posts/art-insights-investing-in-soup
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sheryl Cooper (QPQ 1 of 2)

5x expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Campbell's Soup Cans II; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Something about "Edition #17".
• Neutral
  :
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: Just went in and spaced out the paragraphs a bit, but nothing much. That citation needed tag on "Edition #17" needs a looking-at, though. In terms of the hook, maybe italicize "Hot Dog Bean" seeing it's a painting and it's italicized in the article? Otherwise, just need you to do the QPQ. AdoTang (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AdoTang: A QPQ has been provided. Are there other concerns for this nomination? Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're good now. AdoTang (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• TonyTheTiger, AdoTang, has the article been checked for WP:Copying within Wikipedia of greater than 20 percent of the article content? I ask because a similar DYK nomination was incorrectly accepted while being ineligible due to being a split without 5x expansion. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • However, as I note at
    WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @TonyTheTiger: as buidhe notes, the rule here is gonna be 80%, not 1.5k – in that case, we'd call it a fivefold expansion that in total passes 1.5k. (And if the content is new, but put in multiple places, choose one article that it counts for.) Does it pass that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • theleekycauldron This is mathematically impossible because the total prose size is 1542 bytes. Any significant copying, as Tony states above, would mean that it would be ineligible (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right, well, it's on TTT to withdraw the nomination or prove the issue isn't valid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:TFA on May 10, 2007 it started the day with 24778 characters. So there is 20k of new content there and if that overlaps with this somewhat I don't think that should count because it has way more than 1500k of other content added. Campbell's Soup I ran at DYK on 8 October 2023. this version
  ran on DYK.

The following 181 characters in the current Campbell's Soup Cans II are identical to the version that ran: "Warhol commented on his silkscreens saying "the reason I’m painting this way is that I want to be a machine, and I feel that whatever I do and do machine-like is what I want to do."" Each has an opening paragraph tailored to itself: CSCII says "Campbell's Soup Cans II is a work of art produced in 1969 by Andy Warhol as part of his Campbell's Soup Cans series. This is one of two 10-piece sets of screenprints that Warhol produced 250 of (the other being Campbell's Soup I produced a year earlier)." The CSI that ran had "Campbell's Soup I (sometimes Campbell's Soup Cans I) is a work of art produced in 1968 by Andy Warhol as a derivative of his Campbell's Soup Cans series." It also included the sentence "This is one of two 10-piece sets of screenprints that Warhol produced 250 of (the other being Campbell's Soup Cans II the following year)." I don't think the first sentence counts as duplicate content. Each is just describing itself in a similar manner. From CSCIIs opening paragraph the only content that is redundant from what ran is "This is one of two 10-piece sets of screenprints that Warhol produced 250 of", which is 76 characters.

The amount of the currently proposed article that is duplicate content is 181 + 76= 257. The article is 1542 which is more than 5x the duplicated content.-

• Also note that the article that preexisted had 262 characters and this is also 5x of that.-
  WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @TonyTheTiger: if 262+257=519 characters in the article aren't new, this article couldn't be considered a 5x expansion, I'm afraid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the number I would need is 2595? I have pushed it up over 2200 so far. Maybe I can get there.-
      WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I need clarification on the expansion rules. If I cover the same topic as
      WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • @
      WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Also, I have rephrased "This is one of two 10-piece sets of screenprints that Warhol produced 250 of (the other being Campbell's Soup I produced a year earlier)" to "Following Campbell's Soup I the prior year, Warhol produced 250 of this 10-piece set of screenprints", which I think eliminates 76 characters of duplication and moves the character count to 2182 and moves the hurdle number to (262 + 181)*5=443*5=2215 characters I believe. Almost there if this is actually sufficient to reduce the duplication.-
        WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • I have added some "Sunday B Morning" content and await your evaluation of whether it is duplicative.-
        WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I think we understand text that isn't copied to generally be new. But I think that requires clarification, so i'll make a post at WT:DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. drop in a link to the discussion.-
            WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• meh, I'll get to it another time. In the meantime, probably best to let this go through, unless buidhe has further objections :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]