Talk:Chicken 65

Quality
this article needs clean-up.. too many unverified claims. --Bijun (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely changed the article, it now just needs adding to, and of course citation. All I can find is information on blogs, which I don't feel is too reliable of a source. But nevertheless, is it worthy enough to be brought up to B-rating? And how can it be improved further? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzai273 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Bonzai. Tried to tidy it up substantially, turning the bullets that I could find references for into proper prose.  I didn't carry anything across that I couldn't find a reference for.  It would be great if we could flesh this out and add more stuff in proper prose format.


 * A couple of small points... "etymology" isn't really the right word in this context.  You could talk about the "etymology" of an individual word by breaking it down, but if someone splices a noun and a number to make a compound name, that's not really an etymology.  Also, the stuff about Chicken 65 being a distinctly un-Indian dish was interesting to read, but I'm pretty sure it's original research and doesn't belong here unless we can cite it  :o) Señor Service (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Layout guidelines
I have edited the page and changed the layout. I think the new layout is written wiki style. I would want to remove the layout re-organization warning LokeshRavindranathan 07:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)