Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

KFC[edit]

KFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mo I am nominating this for featured article because I have taken it to GA level and believe it is worthy of FA level. I last nominated this article for review on the 2 February, which it failed. I have changed it a good amount since then, taking on board comments from the last review. Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 20 Februar16y 2013 (UTC)

File:KFC logo-image.svg is boiler plated, what is it's purpose? 94.197.33.20 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does "boiler plated" me in this context? The KFC logo is fair use.Farrtj (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is a copy and paste from another non-free image, what is special about this image that means it needs to be used in this article? 188.29.78.209 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's self explanatory: "The image is used to identify KFC, a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey." There is no free alternative. Farrtj (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be your contention that the average Wikipedia user on seeing an article entitled KFC, would be unable to ascertain it was an article about KFC without the use of non-free content? 188.29.175.15 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The logo as a means of identification is especially important for users for which English is a second language, or those with poor literacy skills. An initialism could stand for anything. The logo gives very quick confirmation that this is in fact, the restaurant chain. Farrtj (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose use of non-free content without valid fair use rationale 188.28.76.41 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
contested. Use of low resolution logo constitutes fair use.Farrtj (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Contested. Use of a logo on an article about the company itself falls so far within the realm of fair use that I'd be tempted to oppose an article that didn't include it. Textbook case of fair use. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Curly Turkey. The use of this image in this article clearly falls well within the boundaries of both the fair use doctrine AND Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose is unwarranted, the logo is appropriate as it shows what is used identify the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my unaddressed comments in the previous FAC. This article remains heavily dependent on news stories for sourcing, and fails to make much use of the academic articles and books which cover this topic. The 'operations' section remains in a poor state - for instance, the 420 stores in Indonesia are accorded a single brief sentence while the 840 stores in the UK and Ireland gets a very detailed three paragraph section (which includes a dubious claim from the company's website which implies that its a well regarded workplace - KFC may well have won these awards, but it's obviously not actually considered a desirable employer by most people). The article's prose also needs work - watch out of past tense being used when it's not needed (many uses of 'would' could be replaced by 'was' or equivalent as an example), and a fair amount of material in the 'Products' section is unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested 1.) The Featured Article Criteria says, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". I've added a few more book sources from books that mention KFC in passing across a few sentences. I'll point out that your disapproval of news sources seems to imply that I am leaning heavily on tabloid sources, which is simply not the case. A quick scan of the references section shows that my sources lean on upmarket broadsheets such as The Economist, The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, New York Times. And it seems an unfair criticism anyway: a subject such as this is always going to necessitate a degree of dependence on news sources, as books and academic journals tend to avoid such perceived to be down-market topics as KFC anyway. The article conforms to FA criteria: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Furthermore, "it neglects no major facts or details". 2.) I've expanded Indonesia now. Bear in mind that the market there is very similar to the Chinese market, and other Asian KFCs. It's only worth including facts that are interesting and informative, not adding facts that are dull and repetitive. 3.) I've removed the great place to work claim, as I can see where you're coming from. 4.) I'll dispute that the past tense is overused in the article. 5.) As per Wikipedia:When to cite, I don't think it's necessary to cite some pretty uncontentious claims, that I believe fall under "Subject-specific common knowledge".Farrtj (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that those newspapers are not tabloids (I subscribe to the NY Times and buy The Economist most weeks...). My concern is that you still haven't drawn on the full range of high quality sources. Your claim that "books and academic journals tend to avoid such perceived to be down-market topics as KFC anyway" is dubious given that I had no problem finding several useful looking sources in a few minutes of searching in the last FAC (all of which you then dismissed on, to be frank, unconvincing grounds). Adding an extra half a sentence to the section on Indonesia does not address the obvious gross imbalance here. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oh my! I'm just being obtrusive! I'm clearly ignoring the fantastic sources out there because I want this article to fail!* (sarcasm) The UK & Ireland was KFC's first overseas market. Basically it's only European success until very recently. It is still one of KFC's major markets. Plus, there are great sources available for the UK operations, which isn't the case with the Indonesian operations. And where does one draw the line on which countries are commented on in depth anyway? Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand all have as many restaurants as the Indonesian operation. An encylopedia is an overview of a topic, not a detailing of every single aspect of its operation. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback for you, compiled as I was reading your article:

Franchising
'In 1958, Sanders gifted the rights to franchise KFC in Florida to his eldest daughter Margaret, as a wedding present.'

  • I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is, especially as the opening sentence of a new paragraph. I don't doubt it's factually right but cannot see its relevance in the KFC story, as compared to the rest of the paragraph.
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sale by Sanders
'In 1966, Sanders' nephew Lee Cummings left the company after the sale to found the Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken chain.'

  • Not sure of the relevance of this sentence, given the first time Lee Cummings is mentioned is when he left the company.
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'According to Sally Denton…'

  • Who is Sally Denton? What is her place in the KFC story?
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In August 1970 Sanders and his grandson Harland Adams resigned from the board of directors.'

  • Since when had Sanders been on the board? What relevance was Harland Adams to the KFC story?
Removed.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heublein takeover
'The company, once too large for Sanders to handle, grew too much for John Y. Brown as well. After just a few years on the stock exchange, the company had overreached itself.'

  • Construction of these sentences needs some work.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In 1973 Heublein introduced barbecue spare ribs, which sold well, but caused "tremendous" operating problems.'

  • What problems were these?
I don't know.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need to find out. Cannot leave at 'tremendous' without amplification. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you open up the reference at the end of the sentence, it just has the "tremendous" quote, but does not explain what the problems were.Farrtj (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might be relevant: 'He tells about KFC's attempt to sell spare ribs. "The ribs were carefully researched," he says. But we ran into the biggest pork shortage in 40 years in 1975. So what was supposed to go out at $1.69 or $1.79 went out at $2.09, and over $2 it did not have a prayer.' It's from Business Week, 1977, Issues 2490-2498; that's all I can see from the Google entry. There is also some discussion in that article about KFC spending too much time on long-term planning noting that the fast-food franchising business is so volatile that it is hard to do any long-term planning (according to a former KFC exec). Sounds like an interesting article just for that bit, let alone the KFC exec's comment about the pernickety ribs. Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added the bit about the price of pork shooting up. But I think the article makes it quite clear: diversifying from what they did best (fried chicken) was a bad move.Farrtj (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sale to PepsiCo
'…spicy "Hot Wings", popcorn chicken, and the "Zinger", a spicy chicken fillet burger, for international markets.'

  • Which of these products were introduced to international markets?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Some product launches, such as skinless chicken, designed to appeal to more health-conscious customers were outright failures, increasing overheads and helping operating profits decline by 37 per cent in 1991, after customers failed to accept the unfamiliar texture.'

  • Sentence is too long.
I've changed it.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Cranor's proposed contract…'

  • Cranor is mentioned two long paragraphs ago and by the time I had gotten to this mention I'd forgotten who he was.
I'm not sure what to do about that, as I don't want to repeat who he is.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, I think. Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricon/Yum! Brands
'APP argued that mixed tropical hardwood fibre "can be…'

  • Turn the quote into a blockquote. It's too long for an in-line quote.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In April 2010, the Double Down sandwich sandwich was launched.'

  • As an opening sentence of a new paragraph, this sentence doesn't convey what the rest of the paragraph will be about.
Moved it.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In 2012, Interbrand valued the KFC brand at just under $6 billion. Interbrand lauded KFC's promotional activity on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.'

  • These two sentences bear no relevance to the rest of the paragraph.
Moved them to marketing.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far.Farrtj (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China
'It is the largest Western restaurant chain, with 4,200 branches, and China is one of the only countries in the world where McDonald's is not the dominant fast food chain.'

  • What's the dominant food chain/s in China?
sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'The chain has adapted to the market in another way: the average Chinese KFC is twice as large as an American outlet.'

  • How is this an adaptation?
It is.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. Pls check my edit. Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Warren Liu, a former vice-president of Tricon Global Restaurants argues that, "being the first – the pioneer into these remote corners of China – has continued to provide KFC with a substantial competitive advantage." '

  • Hmm. I was going to say, "who are Tricon Global Restaurants"? but then I see they are mentioned several paragraphs ago. Same problem as last time---players are mentioned early on then again several paragraphs later on by which time their relevance is forgotten. I'll think some more about how this could be addressed.
Sorted. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how could it be relevant to go into the remote corners of China---which I question is the case---rather than densely populated urban centres?
sortedFarrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In November 2011, Yum! acquired Little Sheep, a Mongolian restaurant chain specialising in hot pot.'

  • Not sure what the relevance of this statement is?
removed.Farrtj (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other observations

The lead. Please check to see this still matches the content and flow of the main body of the article.

Products
'…typically holding between 6 and 16 pieces of chicken.'

  • Is it 6 to 16, or 5 to 15?
Did a quick Ctrl + F search and couldn't find the 5 to 15 reference.Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Headslap! I meant to say, 'Is it 6 to 16 or 7 to 15? It should probably(?) say, '…typically holding from 6 to 16 pieces of chicken.' Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still a little confused by what you mean. Have a look at what I've done.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorted. Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan. In the first FAC review, mention was made of Japan, where 'KFC is a big deal - Google japanese kfc christmas for instance).' Does anything need to be said about KFC Japan?

It's a big deal at Xmas there. But I'm not sure if that fact justifies an entire subsection. I'd need more than just that to pad out the subsection, and I'm not sure if I'd be able to find it. Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secret recipe. I suspect this is all marketing baloney. Is there no literature questioning the existence of a secret recipe or speculating that it is simply a marketing ploy? If there isn't that's fine but at the moment this section appears non-neutral in its POV.

There isn't. If successive generations of journalists and academics have not seen fit to question its veracity then that's good enough for me. And I'm careful not to say "the secret recipe is great", I just mention what people have said about it. Farrtj (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH: 'In his book "Big Secrets," William Poundstone revealed a laboratory analysis of Kentucky Fried Chicken: "The sample of coating mix was found to contain four and only four ingredients: flour, salt, monosodium glutamate, and black pepper. There were no eleven herbs and spices — no herbs at all in fact... Nothing was found in the sample that couldn't be identified." So much for the "secret." In fact, the chicken's ingredient statement is available on KFC's Web site. See here. Sandbh (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Poundstone got hold of the breading mix BEFORE the spices were added to it. And the KFC ingredient list just lists "spices". Plus laboratory analysis of the 11 herbs and spices would take months and be very expensive, and at the end of the day, only KFC can market their product as 11 herbs and spices, so what would be the point? Poundstone's claim is a big claim, basically accusing a reputable company of mass fraud and deception. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence, and in the 30 years since Poundstone made his claim, no one else has backed him up. Furthermore, if this lab analysis really is so easy to do, and KFC really were conning everyone, do you not think their competitors would have called them up on it? Also, there is countless anecdotal evidence from people who currently work for KFC that there is a spice mix that is added to the chicken breading. Farrtj (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References. Are the following worth considering, revisiting or citing:

  • Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food, by AF Smith
Looked at it again, just in case, but it only touches on KFC fleetingly. No good. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal, by E Schlosser
There is nothing in this book worth adding. The focus in on the burger chains.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast food: Roadside restaurants in the automobile age, by JA Jakle & KA Sculle
Re-read. Was able to add one thing. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through them all. Articles are very short: nothing worth using.Farrtj (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making fast food: From the frying pan into the fryer, by E Reiter
Not very helpful.Farrtj (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting meat on the American table: Taste, technology, transformation, by R Horowitz. Only one mention of KFC of note, but perhaps it could be worked into the article: 'In 1994 (as a unit of Pepsico), KFC sold the equivalent of eleven pieces of chicken for each American citizen.' (p. 127)
That statistic is a little too promotional and unscientific sounding.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was thinking more from the pov of giving an idea of the scale of US KFC ops. Eleven pieces for each American citizen? Amazing! Huge! Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rehashing of something already stated in the Jakle and Sculle Roadside Restaurants book, which I have already added in a more scientific format to the article.Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cooking After 50 Years, by Robert Darden Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking People With You: The Only Way to Make Big Things Happen, by David Novak (Chairman and CEO of Yum! Brands) Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent source. I've already added a few things from it. I see this is a new source, hence I haven't seen it before.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changing chicken: Chooks, cooks and culinary culture, by Jane Dixon. Briefly discusses what KFC's advertising is promoting, and it's not the chicken (p. 136). Also says that 'Labour process accounts of fast food operations are becoming numerous and the practices of chains, such as KFC, have been described elsewhere. Suffice to say, fast food chains rely on Fordist food production and distribution processes.' (pp. 182–3). Is some content about KFC labor processes warranted?
Not much help. Badly researched as well: she claims that the KFC initialism was adopted in 1993, when it was actually 1991! Farrtj (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford companion to American food and drink, by Andrew F. Smith (Kentucky Fried Chicken entry)
This proved quite helpful.Farrtj (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A random term paper is not a good source.Farrtj (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not cite any sources that could be harvested? Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.Farrtj (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, it's no good. The freely available pages offer no citations whatsoever. And the rest is behind a paywall. It doesn't look very good anyway.Farrtj (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe also the International directory of company histories Sandbh (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that would be useful, but I don't have access to that.Farrtj (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no university libraries within reach? The British Library, in London? Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All being well, it would take me 4 and a half hours to reach the British Library. By which time I would have to start making my way back home again!Farrtj (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-library loan? Or what about those nearby university libraries? Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that that resource will be helpful if it just provides a general overview of the company. I already have a great overview of the company. The snippet views available on Google Books do not offer any new information. Farrtj (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations Please fix these in your list of references.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall assessment
Once the above observations are considered I suspect your article will be in range of FA status. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer now. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/KFC/archive2&oldid=1168084099"