Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of KFC/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Graham Colm 13:47, 8 April 2014 [1].

History of KFC edit

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of KFC. I believe it is to a high standard, but I welcome suggestions as to how I can improve it. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I performed a thorough GAN review, and it has only improved since then. The article's prose is good, the images are used appropriately, the organization is excellent, and the lead is appropriate. In my estimation, this fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry edit

Support This was a refreshingly well-prepared and intriguing article. I was very happy to read this. Specifically, the prose is excellent, it's well-sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. No problems with neutrality or stability. I do have a few image questions that I'm sure will be resolved....

I have removed the personality rights tag now. Farrtj (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ky fried chicken.png - Claim of public domain by the "threshold of originality" doctrine does not work with trademarked logos--since part of the requirements for filing and protection under trademark law in the US is that they are original. Since it was a logo last used in 1978, you might have a case for it being free contact under the "abandoned trademark" doctrine.
Replaced with a different image. Farrtj (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ColonelHenry: - The threshold of originality for copyright is different than that for trademarking. Trademarking requires something to not be a reproduction of an existing design (i.e. be an original design), whereas copyright requires a degree of creativity (originality) before something qualifies. Hence why text logos like that for House can be trademarked but not copyrighted. That being said, I agree that this image added little to the article, and it's fine to remove it (unless an SVG is made, which can be bigger). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Colonel Harland Sanders in character.jpg - Are you really sure that's an verifiable "own work" claim? The information statement is a little sparse for me to sign off it. Not many 1974-era photos magically being uploaded so a redflag goes up for me.

Good work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

Without reading the article (which I probably won't do given that I commented on a couple of FACs for the KFC article and so would not be able to approach this with fresh eyes), I have a few concerns about the references here:

  • A number of references are to entire works (1 and 110) or to large groups of pages (eg, 14 - which is cited repeatedly, 23, 28, 49 (a normal length sentence cited to 13 pages) and 57). Please provide specific page numbers for each statement cited to help readers follow up these sources.
I believe this is a matter of preference rather than a requirement for featured articles. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty poor attitude to take to readers of your articles IMO and means that the article does not meet WP:V as it's not practical for readers to verify statements. For instance, reference 110 is 103 page long accounting document (I was unable to locate the statement this report is used to reference in it, but I imagine it's buried in the detail somewhere) and reference 14 directs readers to a 30-odd page chunk of Harland Sanders' autobiography for multiple different facts. There are several other such references. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Reference 1, it's a standard academic reference formatting style to not give the specific page for a journal source, but to instead just list the pages in which the article is located. Farrtj (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have given a page number to the 10-K reference. Farrtj (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on WP:V that says you need a specific page number for each reference. As a matter of fact, this was how the progenitor of this article (KFC) was organised, but after discussion, it was decided that it would be easier if the page numbers were grouped together. Farrtj (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Farrtj - The appropriate content guideline is WP:CITE, specifically WP:CITEHOW. On Wikipedia, it's usually best practice if you're quoting something specific to provide a specific page number. Academic rigour requires it specific information be cited precisely. In a journal article, it's acceptable to list the article's page range if you're adding a general statement (i.e. the thesis of the article or the lengthy discussion of a point within the article). However, specific facts require specific page numbers. when citing article for a specific fact, I generally will use the format: (author) (article title) (journal name): (page range for article), at (specific page number or numbers). i.e. for a specific fact: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, at 4. Or i.e. for a discussion of a certain point: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, from 4-7. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sanders was dissatisfied with the 35-minutes it took to prepare his chicken in an iron frying pan, but he did not want to deep fry; although a much faster process, in Sanders' opinion it produced dry and crusty chicken and cooked the product unevenly".
  • "The new method reduced production time to be comparable with deep frying, yet still (in Sanders' opinion) retained the quality of pan-fried chicken."
  • "Sanders adopted the name because it differentiated his product from the deep fried "Southern fried chicken" product found in restaurants."

The three above quotes are the first three sentences where I use Sanders' autobiography as a reference. As you can see, the first two are statements of opinion from Sanders, and it states so quite clearly in the sentence. The third reference is explaining why Sanders used the KFC name. Who else could explain that than the man who ran the business at the time? Farrtj (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanders autobiography references now have separate page numbers, as they originally did, before I was told on a review over at KFC to amalgamate together. Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual page numbers restored for the Dave Thomas reference. Farrtj (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to pre-internet era magazines and newspapers are lacking page numbers.
Unfortunately this can't be helped. I accessed most (if not all) of these sources through the LexisNexis database, which doesn't list page numbers. Besides page numbers can vary among various editions of the same newspaper, and listing them is not a requirement for FA status. I believe that the newspaper sources are still verifiable without page numbers. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to WP:CITEHOW, newspaper page numbers in references are optional. Farrtj (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One the main references used for the article is "Secret Recipe: Why Kfc Is Still Cooking After 50 Years", which is published by Tapestry Press. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? From my reading of its website [2] Tapestry Press is, at least in part, a self-publishing outfit though it states that it also acts as a traditional publisher for some books. The range of titles published by this firm [3] doesn't indicate that it has any expertise in editing or producing high quality books on business history, and the list of other books written by this author available through Google Books [4] also doesn't suggest that he has any particular expertise in writing business histories. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [5] Robert Darden is an associate professor of journalism at Baylor University. How is he not a reliable author? The book was also created with the help of Pete Harman, who is the virtual co-founder of KFC. Furthermore, there aren't a huge wealth of high quality KFC sources to choose from: you can't afford to be picky. Finally, perhaps the sole academic source about KFC, KFC in China by Warren Liu, sees fit to reference Darden. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was written by a non-specialist with the co-founder of the company and published by a lightweight press which is unlikely to have conducted any fact checking (assuming the book wasn't self-published through this firm) I don't think that this is a reliable source I'm afraid. Other editors may have different views though. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a second opinion on this, but until one appears, I will try to find substitutes for the Darden book. As such, I have removed all quotes and opinions from Darden. Some statements like KFC opening in Beijing in 1987 I have been able to replace with more than adequate sources. Others I have not, and have deleted the statement. Farrtj (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all Darden references now, and replaced them where I can find suitable sources. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Farrtj, Nick-D - Refer to WP:PSTS and related guidelines on this issue. A primary source can be used as a reliable source if the content of the article is relates to a recollected autobiographical detail that isn't dispute. (Example: if Liz Taylor said she had sex with Michael Jackson, we should assume that detail can be supported by a primary source. However, if she divorced someone because of infidelity, some newspaper articles on the case or an non-involved third-party needs to support that claim). In the cases where it is suspect, it needs to be backed by reliable second sources. A business book co-authored by a primary actor (i.e. a business executive) and a journalist or journalism professor should be treated as a primary source, per that guideline above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Almost one month on there are still a number of references to large page ranges. I don't think that this is at all suitable referencing for a FA. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the specific references you take issue with? From what I can see, I disagree that this is an issue. In my academic background, one cites a journal reference's entire page range rather than the specific page in the journal. And I'm consistent within a style. And I don't think a page range of eg 14-40 is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 (company headquarters location cited to a 50 page range), 8 (five separate claims cited to a 26 page range), 32 (3 separate facts cited to and eight page range) and 38 (five statements cited to a three page range). I note that many other statements from books are cited to specific pages, so these are inconsistent with that referencing style, as well as not being very helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 sorted out. I don't think the other page ranges are unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the single page number references for the Ozersky source, so now the sole page range reference is the Bill Carey, with a 9 page reference, which I don't think is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment
    • In the lede, it is mentioned that KFC's venture into China was the first for a western franchise. However, this factoid is not reintroduced/sourced in the body of the article when it mentions the opening in Beijing. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Farrtj (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I updated the source to add the page that mentions this (127). - Floydian τ ¢ 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have thoroughly scanned the prose for flow and grammar, and this article meets my expectations. I was thrown back to find out that Dave Thomas was the top guy for KFC before starting Wendy's; very interesting! I have not done a source spotcheck, except for the lone fact I mention above this. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reading through now - will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Harman, the addition of KFC - was the acronym in use at this point? If not it strikes me as a bit misleading - maybe use "the addition of the name" ?
Actually you've mentioned about useing the name to distinguish it twice in about three sentences. If there was some way to fold this into one sequence it'd help I think.
I've cleared this up now I think. Farrtj (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KFC international sales boomed, with particular success in Japan -I'd change "international" to "elsewhere" - less repetitive and clearer meaning (I am in Oz)
Done. Farrtj (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the name change to the acronym as being a pretty big thing at the time - any other comments, especially looking back on it in later years, might be good to add. If there is nothing in the sources then this is moot I guess.
It was a big deal, and for this reason I researched it extensively. KFC don't appear to have given a solid reason for the name change at the time. Them eventually I found the KFC US President say they were trying to get away from the "fried" connotation. It dedicate three sentences to it, I'm not sure what else you're looking for? Farrtj (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure really...whether folks retrospectively thought it was a good idea. If there is nothing else really then never mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some additional information about the name change. Farrtj (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, leaning support - still thinking about issues such as history of advertising and slogans that are currently on the main KFC page, as well as some PETA/Greenpeace issues. Can you describe your rationale for what goes where? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful edits and comments. My overall aim is to follow User:Jerem43's lead with Burger King and create separate articles for Advertising and Controversies. The Controversy regarding PETA is definitely worthy of an article in itself, as it's enormously nuanced and complex. I don't want to repeat information here that will ultimately be in the Controversy at KFC article. Again, I feel that Advertising is better off with its own section. It's very difficult to tell what advertising has really had a major impact on the company etc. Farrtj (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • As this is looking like it will soon become the nominator's first FAC to be promoted, I'd like to see someone perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (unless I missed it above).
  • "In the early 1970s, KFC was sold to the spirits distributor Heublein, who were taken over by the R.J. Reynolds food and tobacco conglomerate, who sold the chain to PepsiCo". Seems to be inconsistency here. You say "KFC was" (the company being singular) but then "Heublein ... were" (the company being plural) -- which is correct in AmEng? Also is it standard in AmEng to treat a company as a personage ("who" instead of "which")? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited that section now. I hope that's better. Farrtj (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Midnightblueowl: Generally, this is a very good article, and it is clear that a lot of hard work has gone into putting it together. However, I am a little perturbed that it makes no mention of the fact that, for at least several decades, KFC has been the focus of harsh criticism from both health advocates and animal welfare and/or animal rights groups. It concerns me that this article does not even mention such criticism, which has often led to direct action protests at KFC outlets, many of which will have been reported on by the media and other reputable sources. Surely we should have some information on this aspect of KFC's history in here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a few comments about this from numerous reviews now. I've added a paragraph about increasing criticism of the health effects of fast food and some background about the KFC/PETA relationship. Farrtj (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - some concerns here

  • "After leaving the family home at age 12, Sanders passed through several professions, with mixed success" - given source supports "several professions" but neither age at departure (it says "seventh grade" but also "teenager") nor level of success
13 appears to be the correct age. Have amended this with a new source. The new source also details Sanders mixed success in various professions, by his own account. Farrtj (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he admitted to the use of salt and pepper" - source?
added reference to his "Celebrity chef" autobiography. Farrtj (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wearing a black frock coat" - source?
added a reference Farrtj (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pay four (later five) cents on each chicken sold as a franchise fee" - source?
Can't find a source for the four cents claim at this moment in time, so have amended to the sourced five cent claim for now. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use his name and likeness for promotional purposes" is a direct quote from the source
Changed. Farrtj (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Brown, Sanders had lost interest in the business operations of KFC, and suggested that Brown should buy the company" - not seeing this in the source
The reference says "Sanders, at 75, was losing interest in the business side of KFC", but does not mention that the sale was Sanders' suggestion, so I have removed that part. Farrtj (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Massey made the written offer, Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his office drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell" is very close to "made him a written offer. Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell"
Changed the phrasing. Farrtj (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending a thorough going-through of references and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest that you yourself undertake this task, or continue to oppose until someone else does the job? It would be a shame to see this article fail its nomination simply because no one will look through the references. It also implies guilt until proven innocent, rather than the other way round. It is my belief that I shouldn't have to prove that my references are above board: it should be up to others to prove that they aren't. Farrtj (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What specifically is wrong with them? Tezero (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note As there is still no consensus for promotion after three months here, I will be closing this nomination in a few minutes. Please wait for at least two weeks before re-nominating. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2014 (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/History_of_KFC/archive1&oldid=1083676773"