Wikipedia:Peer review/KFC/archive2

KFC
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to FA status. It needs a good third party perspective to give it a good copy edit and flag any other problems I may have missed.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some pronoun confusion in the second paragraph of the History section. "His father died when he was six years old, forcing his mother to work at a canning plant, and leaving her eldest son to care for his two younger siblings." Was Sanders the eldest son? Suggest restructuring the sentence, or breaking it into two sentences. Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Think I've sorted this one.Farrtj (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This sentence is kinda clumsy: "Originally using his own dining room table, in 1934, Sanders purchased the larger filling station on the other side of the road and expanded to six tables." Suggest this, or something like it: After four years of serving from his own dining room table, Sanders purchased.... Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done!Farrtj (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest replacing longer words with shorter words, longer constructions with shorter ones. For instance, instead of "dissatisfied," I would use "unhappy." Instead of "the 35-minute duration it took," I would write "the 35-minutes it took." My background is in business and news writing - not academic - so I always go for brevity. I think that's a good idea when writing for the average Wikipedia reader, too. I'll make the couple of changes I just suggested and leave it to you to decide if you'd like to make similar changes throughout your article... which is very good so far, BTW. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if you think that brevity is best I don't disagree per se. I always write in a more academic style, perhaps because that's my background. Yes, I give you carte blanche to make the changes you see fit.Farrtj (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I here you, and you can change back the one paragraph I changed without hurting my feelings. It's definitely a style thing. If I thought I were writing only for college-educated readers, I might choose academic - but possibly not even then. Simple is not only easier to read, it takes less space! Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest standardizing use of "United States" and its abbreviations. Per The Associated Press Style Guidebook, you use "United States" on first reference, and "U.S." thereafter. It seems that some now use "US" instead of "U.S." Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now switched them all to "US" to bring it in line with "UK".Farrtj (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences of the second paragraph of the Operations section are a little clunky. I had to read them two or three times and I'm still not sure that I get their exact meaning. "As of 2012, there were over 18,000 KFC outlets in 120 countries and territories around the world: 4,400 in China, 9,000 internationally and 4,600 in the United States, with China accounting for 49 percent of revenue. Outlets are either company owned, operated using joint ventures with local partners or by franchisees."
 * I think the first sentence needs to be restructured or broken into two sentences. The second one... maybe it's as simple as putting a comma after "partners"? I can think of a couple other ways to rewrite it, depending on what it's supposed to mean. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarified.Farrtj (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I've done as much as I can do on this article at this time. I spent this morning finishing reading it. I made some changes, which I hope I've documented well enough in the edit summaries - but if you have questions, please ask. I did a lot of work on the "Controversies and criticism" section. I think it's better sometimes to have an article "outsider" work on those kinds of things. It was a bit wordy in places, and used some charged language, too, which I tried to tone down a bit. That brings up one of my final, overall suggestions, which I'll list next. Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest you use simple verbs like "said" and "asked" more. Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest you pick American English or British English and edit throughout. (Examples: "criticise" v "criticize"; using singular or plural forms for organisations/organizations. If you go with American, a company or organization is a single thing. "KFC was..." and "Its campaign was..." - not "KFC were..." or "Their campaign was....") Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replace "Yum! Brands" with just "Yum!" in most instances? Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have done where it is appropriate.Farrtj (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Penultimate line in "International" section needs work.
 * "Promotional tie-ins" and "Sponsorship" sections are kinda out of scale with some of the other sections. Merge, maybe, or develop more? Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have merged these small sections.Farrtj (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea, unless/until the separate sub-topics are more developed. I merged the two short paragraphs and renamed the sub-section "Promotional tie-ins and corporate sponsorship," which is more focused than "Other." Also, the Brand Z sentence seems out of place there, but it seemed weird up there alone at the top if the Advertising section before. Where better to place it? Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing about KFC in popular culture? The Colonel and/or KFC have been on The Simpsons and South Park, and my son says it (KFC) was recently on The Colbert Report. It's not always complimentary, but it would be a tasty counter to the dryer elements of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There really isn't enough raw material to justify an entire section.Farrtj (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the couple of things added don't make it better now. Maybe to add to the to-do list? I'm sure there's stuff out there, but for now, I'd remove the little bit that was added. Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to peer review KFC! I'll try my best to affect the changes. I don't like to cross out other people's suggestions, so for clarity's sake, would you strikethrough suggestions when you think they've been sorted? You strikethrough by placing example either side of the text.Farrtj (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will put a ✅ checkmark next to them, so they're still readable. Is that OK? Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'd rather you didn't do that. The build up of ticks produces lag on useless old laptops like mine! Farrtj (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! OK. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)