A fact from Chicken in the Rough appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: page moved and a WP:HISTMERGE has been performed. North America 1000 02:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Chicken In The Rough → Chicken in the Rough – Certain sources, like The Times Herald and NY Daily News, don't capitalize in the. Even WP:NCCAPS discourages it. George Ho ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that it contains factual errors caused by the fact that Beverly Osborne was the creator/founder of TWO semi-related, but intertwined, businesses, the first is the chain of "Beverly's Family Restaurants", all of which were located in Oklahoma City and the second is a franchise system that licensed other restaurants to make and sell "Chicken in the Rough" but allow those restaurants to keep their own names and sell other products. (Osborne's franchise system is closer to that used by Coca-Cola and Pepsi for soft drink sales in restaurants than that used by McDonalds.)
As for the names of Osborne's restaurants (as they appear in old photographs), they had similar but not identical names, such as Beverly's Pancake Corner, Beverly's Drive In, Beverly's Steak, and Beverly Grill.
Sometime before 1978, Osborne sold the "Chicken in the Rough" brand and franchise system to Jack Carroll of Tinley Park, Illinois , but it appears that the Osborne restaurants were excluded from being classed as a franchise.
Because of these events, this create apparent contradictions in some of the cited reference material and much confusion among the Wiki editors.
What is the best way to handle this problem? How should the lead be rewritten to better reflect this situation? Since this would require a major rewrite, I don't want to start something that would be quickly undone by someone who may not have read all of the reference material. Also, I don't want to screw it up since the article is being reviewed as a good article nominee.
The online version of the July 2014 issue of Slice magazine has some nice picture and history of the Beverly's restaurants. [1].
There are also quite a few articles about Jack Carroll's organization. [2] [3]
Information from the 1950 Time magazine article needs to be included. (Time. 5/15/1950, Vol. 55 Issue 20, p92. 1p.) It is very interested, but access is unfortunately restricted by $$$ or via certain libraries.
I will try to add some information soon. 107.216.165.224 ( talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
After that, bantam-sized (5 ft. 5 in.) Bev Osborne always served his chicken in the rough. The customers got no silverware, just fingerbowls. They liked it so much that Osborne kept expanding his Oklahoma City restaurant (it now seats 1,100) and built two more. He also trademarked the name Chicken in the Rough, and began licensing other restaurants to use it. Last week he added 13 more restaurants to the trademarked henhouse, making a total nest of 245 restaurants all across the U.S. that pay him royalties of 2¢ on each order of chicken served. By last week some 335 million orders of chicken had been sold under his royalty setup. Osborne also sells or leases to his franchise customers everything from patented chicken fryers to water glasses bearing his trademark (a design showing a rooster standing in a clump of grass with a broken golf club).
...does anyone know if they ever had even a short lived expansion into Europe / UK, particularly the north of England? Or if the term somehow became used for a while in that area or beyond to represent any fried chicken or fast food outlets? Reason being, I only even knew of the term (and, after the better part of two decades, was finally motivated to google it) thanks to a mention of it in the liner notes of an album by a band from the Sheffield area ... it seemed to be used as an indicator of modern urban ennui and corporate social malaise rather than anything specific or positive.
But the only reference I see here or in the wider internet is the American chain, and to some very limited overseas expansion... 87.113.44.131 ( talk) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicken in the Rough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I changed the top image (non free) to a copyright-expired version on Commons, File:Chicken In The Rough Matchbook Logo.png. @ Northamerica1000: changed it back with comment "the common company logo is preferred, compared to using a lesser-seen matchbox logo from a matchbook cover". I question whether this overrides policy to prefer free licensed media over non-free. Note that File:Chicken_in_the_Rough_logo.jpg has a "Not replaceable with free media" justification stating "No free equivalent is available. Because it is packaging artwork there is no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. No free or public domain images of this product exist in the world. " That there are versions out-of-copyright would seem to invalidate that claim. (I'll also note that the logo as printed on the matchbook *was* "the common company logo" when the matchbook was printed, which was perhaps the era when "Chicken in the Rough" was at it's height.) -- Infrogmation ( talk) 00:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
A fact from Chicken in the Rough appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: page moved and a WP:HISTMERGE has been performed. North America 1000 02:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Chicken In The Rough → Chicken in the Rough – Certain sources, like The Times Herald and NY Daily News, don't capitalize in the. Even WP:NCCAPS discourages it. George Ho ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that it contains factual errors caused by the fact that Beverly Osborne was the creator/founder of TWO semi-related, but intertwined, businesses, the first is the chain of "Beverly's Family Restaurants", all of which were located in Oklahoma City and the second is a franchise system that licensed other restaurants to make and sell "Chicken in the Rough" but allow those restaurants to keep their own names and sell other products. (Osborne's franchise system is closer to that used by Coca-Cola and Pepsi for soft drink sales in restaurants than that used by McDonalds.)
As for the names of Osborne's restaurants (as they appear in old photographs), they had similar but not identical names, such as Beverly's Pancake Corner, Beverly's Drive In, Beverly's Steak, and Beverly Grill.
Sometime before 1978, Osborne sold the "Chicken in the Rough" brand and franchise system to Jack Carroll of Tinley Park, Illinois , but it appears that the Osborne restaurants were excluded from being classed as a franchise.
Because of these events, this create apparent contradictions in some of the cited reference material and much confusion among the Wiki editors.
What is the best way to handle this problem? How should the lead be rewritten to better reflect this situation? Since this would require a major rewrite, I don't want to start something that would be quickly undone by someone who may not have read all of the reference material. Also, I don't want to screw it up since the article is being reviewed as a good article nominee.
The online version of the July 2014 issue of Slice magazine has some nice picture and history of the Beverly's restaurants. [1].
There are also quite a few articles about Jack Carroll's organization. [2] [3]
Information from the 1950 Time magazine article needs to be included. (Time. 5/15/1950, Vol. 55 Issue 20, p92. 1p.) It is very interested, but access is unfortunately restricted by $$$ or via certain libraries.
I will try to add some information soon. 107.216.165.224 ( talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
After that, bantam-sized (5 ft. 5 in.) Bev Osborne always served his chicken in the rough. The customers got no silverware, just fingerbowls. They liked it so much that Osborne kept expanding his Oklahoma City restaurant (it now seats 1,100) and built two more. He also trademarked the name Chicken in the Rough, and began licensing other restaurants to use it. Last week he added 13 more restaurants to the trademarked henhouse, making a total nest of 245 restaurants all across the U.S. that pay him royalties of 2¢ on each order of chicken served. By last week some 335 million orders of chicken had been sold under his royalty setup. Osborne also sells or leases to his franchise customers everything from patented chicken fryers to water glasses bearing his trademark (a design showing a rooster standing in a clump of grass with a broken golf club).
...does anyone know if they ever had even a short lived expansion into Europe / UK, particularly the north of England? Or if the term somehow became used for a while in that area or beyond to represent any fried chicken or fast food outlets? Reason being, I only even knew of the term (and, after the better part of two decades, was finally motivated to google it) thanks to a mention of it in the liner notes of an album by a band from the Sheffield area ... it seemed to be used as an indicator of modern urban ennui and corporate social malaise rather than anything specific or positive.
But the only reference I see here or in the wider internet is the American chain, and to some very limited overseas expansion... 87.113.44.131 ( talk) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicken in the Rough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I changed the top image (non free) to a copyright-expired version on Commons, File:Chicken In The Rough Matchbook Logo.png. @ Northamerica1000: changed it back with comment "the common company logo is preferred, compared to using a lesser-seen matchbox logo from a matchbook cover". I question whether this overrides policy to prefer free licensed media over non-free. Note that File:Chicken_in_the_Rough_logo.jpg has a "Not replaceable with free media" justification stating "No free equivalent is available. Because it is packaging artwork there is no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. No free or public domain images of this product exist in the world. " That there are versions out-of-copyright would seem to invalidate that claim. (I'll also note that the logo as printed on the matchbook *was* "the common company logo" when the matchbook was printed, which was perhaps the era when "Chicken in the Rough" was at it's height.) -- Infrogmation ( talk) 00:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)