Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of KFC/archive2

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 22:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

History of KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of the KFC restaurant chain. This article was nominated once before and was listed for four months before being failed. It received four Supports and one Oppose. Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm surprised this wasn't promoted the last time. I'm leaning towards supporting this well-written history, and just have a couple of minor comments:

Is the infobox necessary? It's identical (and hence redundant) to the one in the parent KFC article. Besides, most of its info—current leadership, finances, products etc—isn't relevant to this history article.

I've followed the model of the Burger King sequence of pages. I like it because it links all of the KFC-related pages under a common banner, and provides a very brief but quick sketch of the company. But I'd be willing to debate the issue. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's so for all groups of articles (for eg: the albums/songs/members of a band), but usually the common banner is the template at the bottom. And I understand that it provides an overview, but it is simply not a relevant overview.

If you still prefer to have an infobox, you should make it summarise this article—history of ownership, various firsts, landmarks in turnover/profits/number of stores etc.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fond of the infobox. Tom (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's content is quite interesting, but it is under-served by the dull section headers. Try to come up with less-formulaic (they're just the owners KFC) and more descriptive titles, that are sort of like teasers for their contents. If necessary reorganise the sections according to themes in that period of history, such as rising sales, international growth etc. (By this I don't mean rewrite anything, just fiddle around with the section headers around to see if there's a more optimal way to organise the article)

I have reworked some of the titles: let me know what you think. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More photographs wouldn't hurt. There's plenty to choose from—nuggets, tower burgers, the chicken pot pie, the double down and Crispy Strips. This image too.—indopug (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the boycott photo. Will look into adding more food related photos. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a Double Down photo. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article that should've been promoted the last time. It can serve as a model for corporate-history articles.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article. I copyedited it and am just taking one last look before I can support. Good work. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I appreciate your edits. Farrtj (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --John (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the support comment above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Issues were found with spotchecks on the previous review, and I suggested a thorough check was needed; I am disappointed to see that this appears not to have been done. Examples of further problems:

"brought order and efficiency to a chaotic management structure" is quite close to "bringing order and efficiency to a ramshackle management structure"

Done. Tom (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"prevent possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control" is quite close to "avoid possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control"

Done. Tom (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"specialized operations proved easier to sell to potential franchisees" is quite close to "specialized operations proved easier to sell to would-be franchisees"

Done. Tom (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticised as an unhealthy product" is not supported by the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tom (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, if you have any further specific complaints I'd be glad to address them. It would just be a shame to see this article fail its FA nomination again just because nobody volunteers to spotcheck the references. Tom (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I did in the previous FAC. Article reads well and is very comprehensive. I did not spot check the references, but I trust the review above will address them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – (Comments moved to talk) I see no other issues and I'm happy to support the articles promotion to FA. The nominator's perseverance is something to admire. Cassianto ^talk 08:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I need to see more spotchecks before I can consider promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further spotchecks and continued issues

"sold well but caused "tremendous" operating problems" - I appreciate that you've quoted one word, but actually the whole phrase is identical to the source

Have altered the text to ensure differentiation. Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"allowing Sanders' restaurant venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House" and continued his role as goodwill ambassador" is quite close to "continued his salary as goodwill ambassador and allowed the new venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House"

Sorted. Tom (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"PepsiCo switched 1,650 company owned stores to their own soft drinks" - source says 1850

Where did you access the source? I need to check it but I can't remember where I found it (given that I have been working on KFC for two years). Tom (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the original Giges source to doublecheck, but the NYT states 1,800 company owned outlets at the time, so I'll go along with that. Tom (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It proved to be a costly failure: a $100 million investment in marketing and equipment was undermined by faulty ovens" does not appear to be supported by the given source at all

Have fixed this now. Tom (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs a thorough reworking, and my oppose still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 22:25, 24 May 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.