Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive5

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 article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

KFC[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since last time I have expanded the History section, which allowed me to spin it off as a separate article, which makes the main article shorter and more palatable. All the issues were addressed by myself in the last nomination, but sadly the article received neither any Opposes or Supports. Farrtj (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Markus.Edenhauser[edit]

Oppose Although I can see there is a motivation to get all the reference issues fixed, I am not satisfied with the details at all. Despite the fact you mentioned a few points of criticism, there are a lot more considerarble topics. Many things are not as they seem! There are a lot of contributions which are focusing on this issues. Especially I would like to focus the topics: * animal protection * healty attitdes *working condition. If you consider these in your articel I would support you.

Perhaps, but surely one can only give an overview of criticisms of the company on the main page. All the controversies and criticisms deserve their own spin off page, such as the History section of the main article received with History of KFC. Farrtj (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Oppose at this time. I see this article has been a frequent guest of the FAC process, but there's still a surprisingly large amount of obvious issues here, including a nontrivial amount of problems with reference formatting. Reference numbers [in the original comments, anyway] are based on this version, in case they get moved about in editing:

  • Reference 14 and 16 are to the same source, one page different. I'm not sure there's any policy or practice that forbids you from doing this, but it bugs me, when you could just make the page number field in the template read |pages=98–99 and get both of them. I'm not going to list them all, but there are several other times this sort of thing occurs.
I can't find any rule against doing this, and as my system is more precise, I fail to see what your problem is here.Farrtj (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several options, including short-form referencing for subsequent uses. That said, I'm not sure whether anything in the MOS dictates dealing with this in any particular method (or even, as you have, not at all), so this may or may not be actionable, and I'll let others weigh in on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that it may seem awkward, but it's practical for the moment as I'm constantly cutting and pasting, and creating new spin off articles such as History of KFC. Farrtj (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 40 has you site the publishing website by its url, not by the actual site's name (wstribune.com versus Wall Street Tribune). Some sites actually do present themselves with that sort of name, but most or all of these (I stopped checking at some point) do not.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For that particular instance, yes, although there's quite a bit of this still present (Greenpeace, Sky News, some others). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've caught all of them now.Farrtj (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I still see enquirer.com, WSJ.com, thepoultrysite.com. Probably more, I stopped hitting find. Search the references for ".com", and that should hit on most, if not all of them. Including that gemcapital.com.au source, which I'd overlooked before. It's a real problem: it's an almost-certainly copyright-infringing posting of a Dow Jones personal-use-only e-copy of a (legitimate) Wall Street Journal article. The ultimate source (the WSJ) is fine, but the reference needs cleaned up badly! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Sorted out all those issues. Replaced gemcapital source with original, switched poultry site to its more reputable source, replaced enquirer tabloid source with book source.Farrtj (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 114 doesn't match the other formatting for this sort of thing at all.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some concerns about this source (at least as it is presented here), but I want to do a little research myself before voicing them or striking this entry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I found a link to the Associated Press archive and listed it in the reference, so you can check it out for yourself. And I believe Associated Press to be a reputable source. Farrtj (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked all the web sources for missing referencing information, but there's at least some of it. I chose reference 127 more or less at random; that article has an author byline (Kim Bhasin) and publication date (October 25, 2012) not represented in the reference. Also, I rather suspect that the retrieval date there isn't correct (as it is the publication date, and well before most of the retrieval dates in this article), but that's not actionable, and I struggle to care. In any case, everything needs checked for missing information. I spot checked reference 169, also at random, and it was also missing information from the byline (the author here is Anne DiNardo). This is a pervasive problem, and probably extends to the non-web-available sources also.
  • Reference 129 isn't formatted, either.
  • Reference 153 links the publisher, which you do not otherwise do. It's also not formatted the same way as other book sources in general, and lacks a page number citation.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of sorted. Page range is formatted incorrectly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 167 needs more information. Is this an online source? Is there publication information?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you have a lot of primary sources (including, I believe, BUCKET), press releases (none of which appear to be labeled as such as they should be: consider Template:cite press release), and a lot of references to marketing magazines, some of which (but not all, admittedly) are pay-to-play for big business clients or even just silent republishers of press releases with a shiny coat of paint. I'm not familiar enough with the industry's editorial standards to single any of those out, but someone else here may. Quite a few of them lack Wikipedia articles, which isn't damning in and of itself, but is at least a little cause for concern. Regardless, much of this material seems to be the sort that could be sourced to higher-quality third-party publications. While a cultural/business topic, there's more than a few scholarly journal articles on aspects of this operation, too, and more reliable books that aren't considered.

Replaced BUCKET references to independent ones. Which sources are press releases? A lot of marketing magazines are very good and have a proudly independent history, ie the ones I use: Marketing Magazine, ADWEEK and Ad Age: which are the ones you object to?
Adweek is fine (although it, and Brandweek should be styled in normal capitals per the MOS). On the other hand:
  • I'm not sure what the editorial policy of the Wall Street Tribune is, as I couldn't find one easily on their site. Regardless, the article cited from there is actually republished from a stock analyst's site. Might be worth checking WP:RS/N, but I'm not really convinced of their neutrality.
  • The Warc [formerly World Advertising Research Center] site is not cooperating with me at the moment, and so I cannot access either Warc source. Although they claim to be independent, their editorial policy "combines its own content with that of respected industry partners". These need checked out by someone that can make their site cooperate. The World Advertising Research Center's article here was A7'ed years ago, so I'm not sure they're a particularly important voice on their merits, either.
  • I can't find access to that PR Newswire source, but PR Newswire is fundamentally a distribution system for corporate press releases.
  • PETA's "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" site is clearly not going to work as a reliable source. With that said, that has been covered in about a dozen books, one of which is in fact included. More and better sources is the answer here.
  • All three Greenpeace sources are problematic, but the first two especially so. The 2006 source is explicitly a press release (it even says so, refreshingly), and the 2012 source is a transparent attack page. Again, there are third-party sources that address this situation.
And, of course, you've got a lot of primary material in here. Stuff sourced to various KFC websites, KFC publications, Yum! products, and so forth, some of which aren't always obvious as being KFC from just looking at the reference list (like the QSR Brands' website). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as non-reference issues go, there are also concerns:

  • The lead is heavily cited. While there'll be people who will quibble whether that's acceptable or not (my take: yes, but not ideal), it's an indication that the lead isn't serving as a summary. And, indeed, it's not. There's considerable sections of article text not summarized in the lead, and the lead indicates that the KFC "bucket" is iconic, but that's never really addressed in the article.
Ok, I've neutralised the text in the intro referring to the bucket.Farrtj (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, while that technically fixes the problem I addressed, the real issue here is that the bucket is an iconic representation of the brand, and there's no shortage of reliable third-party sources that will say that for you. This was a lead/body mismatch that needed expansion more than culling. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I looked for somewhere that said something along these lines, and I couldn't find a reliable source that actually stated it.Farrtj (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dottie, Enrico (June 21, 1986). "Chicken chains fight, feathers fly". USA Today. p. 01.B. Calls the bucket a "longtime icon".
USA Today is not what I'd consider a good source.Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calonius, Eric (2011). Ten Steps Ahead: What Separates Successful Business Visionaries from the Rest of Us. Portfolio Hardover. p. 12. ISBN 978-1591843764. Calls the bucket "iconic" and discusses its origin (the first buckets were surplus popcorn buckets).
Right, well I did some research into this source. I've read the Dave Thomas autobiography that he's clearly referencing, and this book is loaded with factual errors in just a few paragraphs, as self-help books normally are. Pete Harman invented the KFC bucket, not Dave Thomas. And Thomas doesn't claim to have invented it either. So this source is junk. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that's what I get for trying to make fast turnaround recommendations. I saw that was a Penguin imprint, and assumed it was at least marginally conversant with reality. My apologies. USA Today is a fairly "soft" source, of course, but I'm not sure that it's unsuitable for this purpose. Alternatively, perhaps this source (focused on KFC in Arabia, but still clearly relevant), which also calls the bucket "iconic", intended for academic use: Balakrishnan, Melodena Stephes (2013). "Americana Group: KFC in Mecca (or Makkah)". In Balakrishnan, Melodena Stephens; Michael, Ian; Moonesar, Immanuel Azzad (eds.). East Meets West. Actions and Insights - Middle East North Africa. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 125–138. ISBN 978-1781904138. That source also mentions the social media aspect of KFC advertising. I mention that because I'm a little concerned about the use of Interbrand to "laud" KFC's use of social media (Interbrand's Best Global Brands report is probably notable enough to be okay, but their opinions about brand management are not independent; they are a public image/brand management company, and KFC is one of their clients. Also, the Balakrishnan source mentions KFC's sponshorship of FC Barcelona; it hadn't occurred to me previously, but the sponsorship coverage in the article is inadequate, confined to one unsourced line at the end of the Advertising section. In particular, the Cricket Australia sponshorship generated an unanticipated amount of drama in the press. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this with a reputable book reference now. Farrtj (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more if you dig harder, that was a pretty cursory search. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of wording that's far from brilliant prose. Just in the lead, there's a particularly awkward gloss that caught my eye ("chicken fillet burgers (chicken sandwiches [US])"). There's a pretty tormented sentence in Products, too ("An own brand dessert is the soft serve ice cream product known as "Avalanche", which contains chocolate bits."), and quite frankly a lot of issues throughout; I haven't examined prose in detail because I think there are enough problems that I'm disinclined to spend the time to do so.
Sorted the two issues you refer to.Farrtj (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although those two are better, not striking this point, as I'll need to try to give a more comprehensive prose audit; frankly, a solid copy-editing by someone skilled at such things would have been of benefit along the way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give pretty considerable space to the Chinese hormone scandal twice. It's a big deal, but is this undue weight?
It's important because it affected the company's profits so badly.Farrtj (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kentacohut" not only predates a 2011 movie, but demonstrably does so.
Removed the reference to the movie.Farrtj (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do odd things with money units. Check the Advertising section, where the prose can't decide between $ or US$.
I believe my formatting to be consistent here. I use the nationality distinction in the first instance of it in each section. Farrtj (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Advertising section, check the paragraph beginning "Advertising played a key role at KFC..." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time: 1a/1c/1d (due to the primary source and undeclared press release reliance)/2a/2c.

Comments from Sp33dyphil[edit]

  • FN 9: Add |isbn=9780985543.
done.Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title has been changed for FN 15, which also needs a retrieval date.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author parameters in some of the references are not consistently formatted. Most of the article follows the "last, first" format, except for FN 30, 82, and 88. For the last two, I recommend using |last1=, |first1=, |last2=, |first2= parameters.
Fine for 30, but the latter two is a deliberate decision. And a consistent one.Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not verify this claim "in a small number of markets, mostly in densely populated areas such as Singapore and Hong Kong."
Removed non cited info.Farrtj (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not verify the claim that is cited using FN 39.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about whether to refer to the article as The New York Times or simply New York Times.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 33, 34, 55, 66, 68, 83, 129 and 185: Missing retrieval dates.
done.Farrtj (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 57: Needs formatting.
Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 84: Is there a title for this article?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 145: That's not the full title, and it needs a retrieval date.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FN 164 and 166, specifically the work and publisher parameters. Please be consistent.
  • Perhaps you could add {{Subscription required}} for FN 167, and any other sites that require subscription for that matter?
Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chinese market was entered in November 1987, with an outlet in Beijing." → "In 1987, KFC opened its first Chinese outlet in Beijing."
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at $15 billion" vs "US$15 billion"
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outlets are either company owned, operated using joint ventures with local partners" I feel like this sentence should be merged with the next -- "Eleven percent of outlets are company owned and operated through joint ventures with local partners, with the rest owned and operated by franchisees; company ownership allows for"
  • "Some locations were also opened as combinations of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, but this experiment has been described as a "failure". Yum! Brands CEO David Novak blames franchisees not having their hearts in the venture as the reason for its failure." I cannot find the word "failure" in the BusinessWeek article. I suggest rephrasing it to , "Some locations were also opened as combinations of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, but this experiment was a failure due to the lack of commitment from all three parties."
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since For more than four decades its founding, Sanders" Using since means that the practice is still on-going.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 2006, KFC said that, in the United States, it would begin frying its chicken in trans fat-free oil. This would also apply to their potato wedges and other fried foods, however, the biscuits" → " In October 2006, KFC said that, in the United States, it would begin preparing, potato wedes and other fried foods using trans fat-free oil; however, the biscuits"
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eating it alongside other foods." Don't Americans and Chinese, for example, eat fried chicken with other foods? What am I missing here?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the début proved to be a success, the first store proper was opened at a in suburban location in Nagoya in November 1970."
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2012, there are were"
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annual sales in the UK amount to 60,000 metric tonnes of chicken. 60 per cent of chicken " → "Annual sales in the UK amount to 60,000 metric tonnes of chicken, 60 per cent of which"
Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "franchise for Kentucky Fried Chicken" Why is this not abbreviated?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chain has grown to hold an estimated 32 per cent market share, and product items include spaghetti, wraps and chicken porridge." What is a product item? I suggest rewriting this whole section as, "as of December 2012. The chain controlls an estimated 32 per cent market share, and offers products such as spaghetti, wraps and chicken porridge.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The first outlet opened in Jakarta in 1979. Salim Group, Indonesia's largest conglomerate, became a major shareholder in 1990, providing the company with funds for major expansion. Its master franchisee, PT Fastfood Indonesia, was publicly listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange in 1993."
I'm not sure what the point here is.Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was supposed to go with the previous paragraph, not a separate point. That's how I would tweak the Indonesia section. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Malaysia there are 551...as of December 2012." There are problems with tenses throughout the article.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to oppose on the grounds that the prose needs a bit of work, and some claims cannot be verified. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:51, 27 September 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/archive5&oldid=727104948"