Talk:History of KFC/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 16:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Farrtj

This is a very strong nominee; it passes most of our GA criteria right out of the gate. I have a few issues I wanted to mention, just to help get this article in as good a shape as possible.

• I made several copyedits for smoothness of prose. If you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss.

I've seen these and I have no quibbles.Farrtj (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Be carefully about overlinking. WP:OVERLINKING cautions us not to link "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations" as well as "everyday words understood by most readers in context". Look carefully at whether links to tobacco, filling station, pancake, gravy, salad, etc., are actually adding value to the article. Just use your best judgment. The relevant question to ask yourself is this: Is it plausible that a reader of this article might say "I want to know more about 'snacks' in order to fully understand this article, so I'm glad there's a link to the snack article"? If not, then omit the link.

Thanks for the tip. "Filling station" is linked because different words are used to mean the same thing in other English speaking countries. Similarly with "lawyer", "hamburger", "take out", "slider", "pot pie", "corn muffin". I have unlinked tobacco, gravy, bread roll, pancake, salad. Farrtj (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. You'll want to double-check the infobox (particularly the "Products" section). – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Related: both "first quarter" and "financial quarter" link to Fiscal year. Only one link is needed in the article.

Done.Farrtj (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is a little short. With all the material in the article, it would be better if an additional paragraph's worth of information was included in the lead.

Okay, I've expanded the lead into three paragraphs worth of material now. Farrtj (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a great lead. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have questions about this sentence: "He adopted the distinctive packaging as a favor to Sanders, who had called on behalf of a Denver franchisee who had bought 500 cardboard buckets from a traveling salesman." Does this mean that the Denver franchisee bought buckets that already had distinctive packaging, and Sanders asked Harman to use that for branding? The sentence could be clearer.

Hopefully clearer now. Farrtj (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few cases where you repeat the same citation several times in a row. (For instance, citation 6 references two sentences in a row, and citation 26 references three sentences in a row.) This isn't necessary; unless there are direct quotes, you can simply have one citation at the end of the material sourced to it.

Unless what I'm doing is actively frowned upon, how it currently is is the way that I prefer to do it. Farrtj (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I might frown. But it's not an impediment to GA status, certainly. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• There must be a source for the claim that the company moved to Shelbyville in 1959, and for the claim that Novak became CEO of KFC in 1996.

Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• When you say "from Kentucky to Nashville, Tennessee, which was closer to his home", it isn't clear if you mean Sanders' home or Massey's home.

Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes you spell it "take out", sometimes "take-out", and sometimes "takeout". Sometimes you spell it "US" and sometimes "U.S."

Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Take-out" is now standardized, but you still refer to "waned in the US" and "contract for the US franchisees" on the one hand, and "5,000 U.S. outlets" and "returned in the U.S." on the other. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "Sale to PepsiCo" section, the article's longest, starts to get a little bogged down with details. In my opinion, it would be better if some of the details were trimmed. (There are three different opinions listed about the sale in 1986. There is a long paragraph about whether Pepsi intended to increase soft drink sales, and how competitors reacted. There's a whole paragraph about increased royalty fees, etc.) I don't think this is necessarily an "unnecessary detail" (criterion 3b) issue that has to be resolved for GA status, but I do think it's a place where there is room for improvement through greater concision.

I can see what you mean. Here's my defence: the three comments about the Reynolds era are needed because two are in complete contrast in their opinion. And then the KFC chairman weighs in with a statement that's in the middle, tending towards the negative about Reynolds. The whole soft drinks paragraph is because it's an oft repeated "fact" on the internet that Pepsi bought KFC to increase their drinks sales. I'm curious as to how true that may or may not be. The negative effect of BK and Wendy's switching to rival Coke after the takeover helps explain why Pepsi eventually divested KFC. The American franchisee contract dispute was a major issue for KFC during that period. Farrtj (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "Tricon and Yum! Brands" section mentions KFC "once more promoting the cardboard buckets of chicken it had briefly abandoned in the 1990s", but the removal of cardboard buckets had not been previously mentioned.

Sorted. I'm not sure when KFC got rid of the cardboard buckets, so I've removed the statement about their return because it is indeed confusing. Farrtj (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to be that the article could use a concluding sentence, such as "KFC [is now / remains] the [most / second-most / third-most] [popular restaurant brand / profitable food-chain] in the world." Or, you know, whatever is accurate.

Nice idea. Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting this nomination on hold. If the issues are addressed in a reasonable period of time, I'm sure it will pass. (I understand you also have a FAC open at the same time, so no rush.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There are only a few piddling issues remaining: consistent abbreviation of "U.S." vs. "US", and delinking a few common terms in the infobox. I can't in good conscience hold up GA promotion on such trivialities, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this. (This ain't FAC, after all.) But I hope you'll fix the few remaining formatting issues whenever you get a chance. It's been great working with you, and I am truly impressed with the quality of this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)