I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked to get it to good article status and I want to get it to FA status. If it isn't ready, then I'm sure that any feedback will be immensely helpful and will allow me to improve the article. I have run out of ways that I can see that I can improve the article now, although this may be my fault, a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I have not gotten an article to FA level yet, although I have got 12 articles to GA level. Farrtj (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the article is in OK shape, I'm afraid that it's not of FA standard yet and would need a fair bit of work to get there. Based on reading selected sections of the article, I have the following comments:
The 'operations' section is not at all comprehensive, and needs a lot of work. This section is heavily focused on recent news stories (typically scandals of various sorts) rather than providing an overview of what the operations of the company in each country actually are, and the issues which it's encountered (good and bad). The weighting given to each country seems odd - Indonesia's 420 stores get a sentence and the 600 stores in Australia get a paragraph and a sentence by itself. Other countries aren't mentioned at all (most notably, Japan where KFC is a big deal - Google japanese kfc christmas for instance).
There really isn't much out there about KFC Indonesia unless you speak Indonesian, which I don't. If the single sentence looks daft, then perhaps I should just remove the sentence? Farrtj (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't believe the stuff about the measures being taken to protect the 'secret recipe'. Food scientists or chemists would have no problem working out what it is, and I'm sure that this has been done. It's clearly in KFC's commercial and legal interests to keep this out of the public domain and encourage a mythology, but it's hardly top secret in reality. It would be better to focus this material on the mythology around the recipe and the industrial practices and legal strategies the firm uses to avoid disclosure rather than the current material about the executives.
If newspapers could hire boffins to figure out what the secret recipe is, then why haven't they done so yet? After all, it's a high interest story: the media went ballistic when there was a possibility that a Kentucky couple had discovered the secret recipe. Farrtj (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 'advertising' section also seems to be weighted to relatively recent events, and doesn't cover different advertising strategies (in broad terms!) used in different countries/markets; for instance, KFC spends a lot of money sponsoring cricket which obviously wouldn't win it any business in Japan, China or the US where other sponsorship approaches are used.
It looks like KFC have stopped sponsoring the Twenty20 in Australia? I don't know if sponsorship of cricket in Australia continues, but if they only sponsored it for a few years then it hardly warrants a mention. KFC advertising is usually the same all over the world. Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a quick read of the 'history' section, it seems unduly focused on issues at the head office level, and doesn't really discuss the expansion of this chain across the US and internationally.
The chain is sheepish about this fact (as you'd expect), but a lot of international franchise operations weren't profitable in the early years, and expansion was slow, especially in Western Europe. Italy and Scandinavia failed, and France and Germany were only really cracked in the last 10 years or so. Farrtj (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the number of restaurants as of 2011 or 2012? The article states both (and can this be updated?)
Well it's both: from the Annual Report 2011 which ends on 31 December 2011. So the figure could be called the 2011 or 2012 figure. But I've made them say the same thing now.Farrtj (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is almost entirely referenced to news stories and the like, and doesn't make much use of the available books and journal articles on this chain (for instance, [2], [3], [4], [5] as some examples I found quite quickly - I imagine that there are lots more and/or better books and articles as well).
Overall, my concerns are that the article is not comprehensive (criterion 1b) and does not reflect the full literature which is available (criterion 1c). Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen on the Ozersky source. It seems at times speculative. And as it is written for a general audience, it seems to take liberties with the truth at times. And I don't have access to those academic sources. Farrtj (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your post on my talk page, I'm afraid that my above concerns have not been addressed. I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn or closed by the delegates as it has no prospect of succeeding. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all of your concerns, and I have made some changes, but on the whole, a find that your criticisms are without validity.Farrtj (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the latest SEC 10K statement for Yum used to establish facts about the operation when it is issued in a couple of weeks.
Yes, well it hasn't been issued yet, that's why I've used the 10K to 31 December 2011. That one was released on the 21 February 2012, so I'd expect that is around the date we can expect the next 10K to be issued. Farrtj (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks detail, it needs deeper coverage.
There needs to be a lot more regarding the history of the company. If you do searches in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Nation's Restaurant News, and Google Books you can get a much more comprehensive list of stuff that can be used to fill in the history. Trust me, it takes some serious digging: look at the Burger King and the history of Burger King articles to see where you can find some of these types of sources - you can find the facts out there.
Do you know how to access Nation's Restaurant News? I have a ProQuest and Questia account, but the NRN articles remain locked for some reason. Farrtj (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Free, but with limited access according to the website. And you have to give them your credit card details, which I won't do.Farrtj (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Farrtj, it is worth pointing out that FAC is not about evaluating the best that you can do, it's about determining if the article is the best that it can possibly be. If there are usable sources available, an inability or unwillingness on the contributor's part is not a valid argument for the exclusion of those sources. --Cryptic C62 · Talk03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese operations is woefully inadequate, by the company's own admissions that is its largest market and the source of half of its income. You need to develop it, and the other international sections, better. While researching one of the articles I have been working on, I have found several article referencing KCF being an American company with most of its operations outside its home territory. This is important, as it is now a bellwether for American companies expanding abroad. In Many articles I have researched, it is the base of comparison as opposed to McDonald's.
Okay. I have since improved the coverage there. But I am a little sceptical of the China success story. As I now mention in the article, KFC had only 100 restaurants in China in 1997. The whole thing reeks of a bubble, and if you check the most recent headlines regarding KFC and China, it looks as if the bubble has already burst, or is beginning to do so.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Working from the bottom of the article up, I see lots of problems. Weird phrasing, bad organization, questionable research, etc. I haven't delved into the History or the bulk of Operations yet.
While in some cases a variety in phrasing can be helpful, I find it a bit confusing to refer to people in different ways throughout the article. I see "Colonel Sanders", "the Colonel", and "Sanders" to refer to the founder. This only works if we assume the reader already has some familiarity with the topic or has read the Origin section in its entirety. This phrase is particularly confusing: "Early advertisements for KFC regularly featured Sanders, and the Colonel made several appearances as himself" My advice: drop the nicknames, stick with "Sanders" throughout.
"Sanders" refers to the person; "Colonel Sanders" of "the Colonel" refers to the character that Sanders played in public and on television. Farrtj (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, where in the article is this distinction made clear? Looking at the first three instances of "Colonel" in the article, none of them offer any explanation. Second, why doesn't the entire article follow the convention you've described here? Example: "the Colonel grew incensed when Massey decreed that company headquarters would be in Nashville"
There are two simple reasons why I say "Massey and Sanders did not like each other, and the Colonel grew incensed...". In the second reference to Sanders in that sentence, to use "he" it would not be immediately apparent to the reader that I was referring to Sanders rather than Massey. And secondly, it would be a poor prose style decision to repeat "Sanders" twice. As Harland Sanders regularly went by the name "Colonel Sanders" or simply "The Colonel", I have used that name here. As to your other question, it wasn't official that the Colonel was a character that Sanders played, officially "the Colonel" WAS Sanders. But Ozersky in his book about the Colonel hints that the Colonel was a "character" played by Harland Sanders, even though he can't prove it.Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"chains across the UK and Ireland ceased to use palm oil and switched to rapeseed oil to reduce saturated fats across its range by 25 per cent and cut food miles by sourcing from Kent instead of Asia." Too many ideas being presented without any punctuation.
The Other international operations reads like a trivia section. This is partly because everything is presented in choppy one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and partly because the material presented is quite insubstantial.
Better, but now this puzzles me: "there are almost 900 KFCs in Africa, including long-established markets such as South Africa, Egypt and Morocco..." which seems to contradict the new title of the section Developing markets. --Cryptic C62 · Talk19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw a section titled Products, I expected to read about products. Instead, the first three paragraphs are a folklore story about a secret recipe. The third paragraph in particular is blatantly not related to products whatsoever. Regardless of where this stuff ends up, I'm extremely skeptical about some of the statements made here, particularly since they are presented as fact when they are much more likely to be myths.
You don't believe that Coca-Cola has a secret recipe either then? The secret recipe is often the reason why KFC receives mainstream media coverage. Besides, Pete Harman and John Y Brown Jr at least partly credit KFC's success to the secret recipe. If you disagree with them, then you either think they are stupid, or liars. Harman and Brown are both self made millionaires, and Brown became Governor of Kentucky, which implies that they're not stupid. The Brown quote was made relatively recently, and as he no longer runs KFC, what is his incentive to lie? The third paragraph refers to the secret recipe, which is a core component of Original Recipe chicken, the most famous KFC menu item. The three paragraphs about the secret recipe that you object to are entirely cited to major media organisations. I am simply reporting what they have said. I also add a sceptical note at the end. What exactly is your problem with that as I do not quite understand your angle here(?)Farrtj (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanders had also differentiated his method" Since this is the first sentence of the paragraph, it is not clear what "also" refers to.
"Sanders had also differentiated his method by varying the amount of oil used with the amount of chicken being cooked" So when you say that Sanders "differentiated his method" by doing this, are you suggesting that no one else varied the amount of oil they used? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as being a rather silly claim.
"The "It's finger lickin' good" slogan originated in the 1950s." This opening to the Advertising section really only works if the reader already knows about the phrase. Otherwise, it is a very abrupt way to begin the section.
"Since 2005, an updated version of the original 1950s logo has occasionally been used at some locations, such as the U.S. and New Zealand." When I first read this, I thought "locations" meant individual restaurants, which made "such as the U.S. and New Zealand" clause confusing, as it would suggest that there is only one KFC location in either country. But if, on the other hand, "locations" does not mean individual restaurants, and we're talking about restaurants throughout the U.S., then I don't see how the usage could be called "occasional" unless the location given were much more specific. I think you need to go back to the source material and figure out what point you're trying to make here, because I just don't see it.
"In May 2007, KFC UK requested that the Tan Hill Inn in North Yorkshire refrain from using the term "Family Feast" to describe its Christmas menu." Why?
This is not a helpful source. "KFC" is mentioned four times in the article, each time alongside other fast food restaurants.Farrtj (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, KFC is only mentioned in passing, and does not get an indepth treatment. And I think I make enough of a deal of protests already in India and by Greenpeace and PETA.Farrtj (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is Schlosser's child's adaptation of Fast Food Nation, and I own and have twice read the adult version. FFN discusses KFC very little directly, and is very impartial and non-academic. In fact, Fast Food Nation is already referred to in the article. Farrtj (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to buy this. And I doubt even the British Library here in the UK has a copy, as I doubt it found a British publisher. The History section is already comprehensive anyway. Besides, Massey was only with KFC between July 1964 and 1966. That's less than two years. And Massey is already referred to 14 times by name in the article. That's more than enough. Farrtj (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well those sources were an utter waste of time. I can't access the Quality Management one, but given the uslessness of all the other sources you list, I can't say I'm that bothered. Rest assured, I've already checked all the academic databases, and Google Books for good sources, and there aren't any that I haven't either fully utilised, or found to be utterly unhelpful. Farrtj (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. You've dismissed pretty much every single academic journal or book which has been suggested (even if such works only have limited coverage of the topic, they often have useful details, and most of the above works include a specific focus on KFC). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Farrtj, the manner in which this FAC is progressing (or not, rather) is somewhat concerning to me, particularly when it comes to the issue of sourcing. When the reliability of the sources you have used is questioned, your response is that you are "simply reporting what they have said", yet when potentially useful sources are suggested, your arguments for not using them amount to little more than "this was useless" or "[I] wasn't hugely impressed". Let me ask you this: What criteria are you using to evaluate the source material? If all you must do is "simply report what they have said", then why are you unwilling to do that for the sources suggested above? Or, if it is necessary for you to be "hugely impressed" by a source in order to use it, what is it that you find so hugely impressive about the sources you have used? I'm not attempting to disparage you or your work, as you have very clearly put an immense amount of effort into this project, I am simply looking to establish some consistency where it appears to be lacking. --Cryptic C62 · Talk04:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to improve the article as much as anyone else. But I have already scoured the academic databases and Google Books, so I am already familiar with the sources you list. And I have either already used them as far as I can, or they are simply no good. And frankly, broadsheet newspaper sources are perfectly legitimate. Regardless of whether you think the 11 herbs and spices genuinely affect the flavour of the chicken, or whether it is just a clever marketing ploy, it is the basis on which KFC differentiates itself from its competitors. And if a secret recipe is held in a computerised vault, with only a handful of executives knowing it, then I think that it interesting information. Yes, I accept your point that an academic article is generally a better source than a newspaper, and if I such articles existed with useful information, I would have used them.Farrtj (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
