Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive6

Resolved comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

 * Oppose. Honestly, I'm not even giving this one a very thorough inspection this time. There's clearly been some work done since September, when we saw this last at FAC, but the bulk of my objections then haven't been addressed. The article is still citing easily-referenced historical facts (such as the founding of the Sanders Court & Café) to primary sources (in this case, KFC Marketing Media Library, currently reference #12) instead of a third-party source (of which Google Books provides no shortage!). There are still several references to WARC, whose reliability (and independence) I've yet to be convinced of. There are still deeply POV-problematic Greenpeace webpages used as sources (including what is frankly an attack page), instead of more neutral third-party examinations of the controversy. The corporate sponsorships section is still a stubby little thing that suggests the article is not a comprehensive review of the available literature. Oh, and references #41 and 135 currently have broken templates, and #48 is little better than a bare link. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to your qualms:
 * Two KFC Marketing Media Library references replaced with Google Books sources.
 * Greenpeace Cargill reference replaced with Guardian reference.
 * Removed two Greenpeace rainforest references with a Bloomberg reference. All direct Greenpeace sources have now been removed.
 * #48 (bare link) has been removed as superfluous anyway.
 * Access to WARC is provided by major academic institutions such as the University of Leicester, Birkbeck, Oxford Brookes and the University of Manchester (among many others), indicating that they consider it to be an academic-level source.
 * Two broken templates now fixed.
 * I believe that addresses all of the specific complaints cited above.Farrtj (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 3: You shouldn't cite the business publisher of a page as its author unless it's styled that way (here, it's not). This page is simpy without author attribution.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 12 has nothing wrong with it, but you abbreviate "University" here and not elsewhere.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 13 is the same source as Reference 5, but formatted differently.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 19: Deseret Morning News should almost certainly be italicized here.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 44 is the same source as Reference 3, but formatted differently. This is the second time I've found this problem in the first column of sources.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 57: Why do you wikilink Deseret News here, when you do not wikilink other newspapers? Consistency is an expectation of FAC.
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 63: Presumably, this should be "Yum chief".
 * Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 203 isn't loading for me, but I think that may be a local issue on my end. Assuming this isn't a dead link, what's WPP, and why isn't it spelled out?
 * Loads fine for me. And WPP is the name. It's an orphan initialism, like KFC.Farrtj (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wacky. Learn something everyday. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)