Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive5

Resolved comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

 * Reference 1 has no website or publisher given and so doesn't tell us what this is.
 * It has a website listed quite clearly. Added a publisher.Farrtj (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not consistently refer to Yum!: is it Yum! (as in reference 2) or Yum! Brands (as in reference 3)?
 * Ever hear of shorthand? Or would you refer to "BP" as "British Petroleum" in every instance? Farrtj (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Consistency is the FAC expectation, especially regarding reference formatting; there, especially, I would, yes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right enough. All references changed to "Yum! Brands". Farrtj (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In reference 12, surely that should be Louisville with no extra e?
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 13 makes me a little worried because your link points to a page in the index, referring to a page that isn't available on Google Books, and making me suspect this source wasn't actually consulted properly.
 * Well if you actually consult the page listed (116), you will find the source.Farrtj (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Links to Google Books excerpts of print media are optional. If the print source was consulted, but the Google Books excerpt does not make that material available, perhaps it would be better to omit the link rather than merely link to the index? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that links to Google Books excerpts of print media are optional, but I'd rather include them if possible. I don't understand. Are you saying that you cannot access the link given for this reference? As I can access it ok, and it takes me directly to page 116, where the reference is. Farrtj (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I was saying, yes. But that may have been a momentarily issue with Google Books. The link functions properly now. Sorry for the confusion. Pesky Google, trying to make me look bad... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 30 and 60 are to the same source (see above), but you style the publisher differently.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 64 lists the AP as though it were the publisher, not a wire service. You do this more correctly elsewhere.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 79 isn't properly formatted, with no indication what this is or who produced it; also, I'm not convinced this is a reliable source.
 * Removed a potentially untrustworthy source.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't italicize (or not) KFC sources consistently. Compare reference 92 and 93.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Still at least one of these in italics (KFC Portugal). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Believe this to have been sorted now.Farrtj (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 133 cites "KFC US" while other references to the main KFC site are just cited "KFC".
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably would have dealt with this in the opposite way, myself, but so long as you're consistent about it, that's probably fine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 134 is little better than a bare link.
 * Removed.Farrtj (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Resources in languages other than English need the language indicated in the reference. That's true of reference 138, but possibly others that I didn't check.
 * Caught a few. Believe I got them all.Farrtj (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I find any that are missed, I'll raise them separately. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 150: a video posted on vimeo isn't typically a reliable source, and almost certainly is not a high quality source as appropriate for FAC.
 * Removed.Farrtj (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I slammed reference 169's entry for missing the author info above, but I'm also concerned that it's basically a press release laundered through a republisher. That's certainly how it appears, and it's what their editorial policy suggests, too. More on this below, actually...
 * Removed questionable link.Farrtj (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 184 is a dead link at this time, and the reason for that linkdeath (bandwidth exceeded) does nothing to convince me it is a reliable source.
 * Removed questionable link.Farrtj (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 188's publication is properly titled Supply Management. Like a lot of other material, this is missing the authorship information.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)