Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cracker Barrel Old Country Store/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:48, 13 May 2012 [1].

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store[edit]

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Silverseren, WWB Too

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after a GA nomination and two peer reviews (albeit, the second didn't have much interaction), the article meets the standards for FAC. Cracker Barrel is one of the more famous representations of Southern United States style and cooking and has long been known as one of the largest restaurant chains to come out of the Southern US. I worked on this article with WWB Too, who is my co-nominator, where he did most of the article text and finding the references and I did most of the formatting, fixing references, and the other technical stuff.

Note for transparency: I and WWB Too are members of Wikiproject Cooperation and he was paid in the past to improve this article. He has been completely straightforward about all of this and followed Wikipedia's guidelines to the letter. He was not involved in working on the controversies section in the article and removed himself from talk page discussion on that section.

Request: For the purposes of this FAC, as I don't want to have all of the improvements requested by reviewers to fall on me, I would like to request that WWB Too be allowed to edit the article directly for the purposes of implementing the changes and improvements that the reviewers to this FAC ask for. I don't feel like there should be any issues in this request (hopefully). SilverserenC 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Co-nominator here. This is my first time at FAC and I'm aware that the review process could be tough, so I'm intrigued to help see what I can do to give it the best shot at passing the test. As Silver notes, in 2011 I was engaged by Cracker Barrel to improve this article, and I did so by proposing new material for disinterested volunteer editors to implement. The project for Cracker Barrel has since ended, but it is probably still fair to consider that I have a COI with the topic, and I will primarily focus on providing information from research. I defer to others' views with regard to Silver's request that I be permitted to edit the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Some general comments:
    1. In article the terms "restaurant" and "store" are used interchangeably. This confusing at places. I think you should consistently use one term.
    2. In the 'New markets and refocus' section: In addition to the Corner Market stores, .... Sorry but I do not know what these Corner Market stores are. Please, explain.
    3. In the next section: The number of combined restaurants and stores owned by Cracker Barrel approximately doubled between 1997 and 2000, to over 420 locations. However in the previous section I read: By September 1997, Cracker Barrel had 314 restaurants .... 314*2≠420.
    4. In the 'Business model and partnerships' section the first two sentences duplicate what was said in the previous section 'Restaurants'.
More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will address and fix your other points in a little bit. But two questions:
1) In relation to the request above, is it okay if WWB Too directly edits the article? Because your questions are focusing more on the things he would know how to fix.
2) Do you think it would be better to use restaurant then, rather than store? I was also thinking we could use restaurant in an overarching manner and then also when discussing food, but use store when discussing the store part of the place. Though I do see how that could get confusing.
Let me know. SilverserenC 17:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restaurant vs. store is an interesting challenge. The fact is, each location contains both a store and a restaurant. In writing this originally, I sometimes used the different terms as synecdoche (part representing the whole) in order to avoid repetition. Perhaps it would be better to figure out which instance each is the primary subject, however I expect that this could read to overuse of location. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments by Jim I could feel my arteries hardening just reading this. I'm a Brit, so there may be things I pick up which are obvious in the US, but not necessarily to your global audience. Generally pretty good, but some niggles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • US or U.S. — both occur in the lead alone
  • Since there were only 6 instances of U.S. and far more of US, I removed the former. SilverserenC 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see from the text that racial discrimination in the US is illegal as well as immoral, but that's not clear with the discrimination against women or gays. Can you clarify whether such discrimination is actually illegal in the States, as it would be, for example, in most of Europe?
  • biscuit — now, I'm pretty sure this isn't what I dunk in my tea. Link or gloss perhaps?
  • In addition to the Corner Market stores — What? Not mentioned previously, no indication of what they are. They appear here and slink silently away a few sentences later
  • salsa — I assume not the dance, link or gloss please
  • wake of controversies including charges of racial discrimination and controversy over its policy of firing gay employees — too many controversies
  • I changed the first controversies to incidents. SilverserenC 21:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Cracker Barrel is a Southern themed chain of restaurants and retail stores that serves traditional Southern comfort food often described as "down-home" country cooking, and sells gift items including toys and woodcrafts — does this really need four references? if so, can you conflate them so only one appears here.
  • I've pared it down to only two refs, which singularly used in the article for that sentence. SilverserenC 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nashville — link at first occurence
  • Cracker Barrel employees, funded by the chain's employees. — too many employees
  • are turnip tops actually edible?
  • Yes. As the turnip article says, "Turnip leaves are sometimes eaten as "turnip greens" ("turnip tops" in the UK), and they resemble mustard greens in flavor. Turnip greens are a common side dish in southeastern US cooking, primarily during late fall and winter." SilverserenC 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave the Corner market stuff to WWB. But as for sexual discrimination, it's a tricky legal field. There's a few laws that apply that you can invoke, but they're more general discrimination laws. I don't know if there's stuff specifically for sexual discrimination. Considering many places still don't follow the requirements of the Equal Pay act anyways. So i'm not quite sure how to clarify that in the article other than what it is, which is sexual harassment. SilverserenC 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'll leave to others the discussion of how to handle discrimination topics, I can offer three sources noting that the discrimination was not illegal (at least at the time).
  • From a Detroit News article currently used in the article (<ref name=Price/>) there is this passage:
Summerville was crushed but summoned the strength to speak out publicly. She helped put a human face on anti-gay job bias for millions of Americans who, like Summerville, were shocked to learn that Cracker Barrel's action was perfectly legal. (Thirteen states now outlaw anti-gay job bias, up from two at the start of 1991.)
  • And from Nation's Restaurant News (<ref name=Hayes/>), this:
Cracker Barrel's human-resources vice president, William Bridges, said the company checked with legal counsel to make certain its actions did not violate existing state or federal regulations.
"None of the states in which we operate has laws protecting employees on the basis of sexual preference, nor are there any federal statutes that do so," Bridges explained.
  • And a New York Times article I didn't use (however, just in case: <ref name=Noble>{{cite news |title=Gay Group Asks Accord In Job Dispute last1=Presley Noble |first1=Barbara |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/25/business/company-news-gay-group-asks-accord-in-job-dispute.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=November 25, 1992 |accessdate=April 2, 2012}}</ref>) explains the legal situation well:
Cracker Barrel created a controversy early last year when it said it would no longer "employ individuals whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values." It subsequently dismissed several employees for being homosexual. Gay men and lesbians are not protected by anti-discrimination laws in any of the states where Cracker Barrel operates.
Hope that's of help. WWB Too (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be away for a couple of days, but no rush. Now, what are "mustard greens"...... (;
Likewise, I'll leave the discrimination stuff to Silver. As for the Corner Markets: an earlier version had more information about them, and the article still notes in the following paragraph that their operation ceased three years later. Considering the New markets and refocus heading, it makes sense to include their existence; I suggest replacing the beginning of the second graf with the following:
In 1994, Cracker Barrel tested a [[Take-out|carry-out]] only store, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Corner Market, in suburban residential neighborhoods.<ref name=Moritz/> In addition, Cracker Barrel expanded...
Note, the citation used in that version is still present in the article, making it a relatively simple add. How does that sound? WWB Too (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and just added it.
Oh, and Jim, look here for mustard greens. SilverserenC 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a procedural request: please don't use graphical templates like {{dyktick}}, they slow down what is already a huge WP:FAC main page (the same advice is stated there as well). ClayClayClay 06:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. SilverserenC 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Compare formatting on FNs 2 and 5, 1 vs 20
  • I've made all four formats consistent. Though do note that 1 and 2 don't have dates, since the website doesn't have dates for them. SilverserenC 16:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether or not there's a period after retrieval date
  • Use a consistent date format
  • I think I got all the ones I missed in a prior sweep for consistency. SilverserenC 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain this one? It's already in a cite web format. SilverserenC 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, and the formatting of the website name isn't consistent with other web refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I fixed what you meant. It's now consistent with the format of the earlier Cracker Barrel website refs. SilverserenC 20:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 1a passes, IMO.

  • The disclosure at the top is notable, given the possible turning point we face WRT paid editing. I have no problem if WWB responds to any issue raised; nor would I have a problem if s/he had worked on the so-called controversial parts. What matters is that the text is not POV. The disclosure makes close scrutiny on this point more likely, which is a healthy thing. Thank you.
    • Could we have lower case billion and million in the infobox? You could almost use M and bn, unspaced, after the numerals; but that's optional.
    • Exposed part of lead: "The chain ..." starts two successsive sentences; could one be substituted?
  • Just changed the second instance to "Cracker Barrel". SilverserenC 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repetition: "During the 1990s, the company was the subject of controversy for its company stance ...". Where is a programmer who'll collaborate with me to develop a rep-spotter in WP articles, for the use of all editors?
  • I changed the second instance of company to official. SilverserenC 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "African American"—sufficiently little-known to warrant a link? "Gay" and "lesbian" escape the it's-exotic signal.
    • "Biscuit" is a common term. "Grit" is a defensible wikilink, I think. Not done
  • Biscuit was asked to be wikilinked by a reviewer above, because biscuits in the south are significantly different from biscuits across the ocean in the UK (where they're more like a cookie). A wikilink avoids the confusion about what kind of biscuit we're talking about. SilverserenC 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It floated over ..." – the reader in a few milliseconds disambiguates in reverse: not floating over the cityscape, but "It floated more than half a million shares". It's still widely used in that sense, but I usually change it for this reason.
    • There's an errant dot after "2000s".
    • "the chain tested a carry-out only store" – strictly speaking, carry-out-only.
    • Who's gonna skip to the article on "Texas" or "New York" in the middle of reading about the dishes they added to the menu? Why not focus readers on the salsa and Reuben sandwiches, which aren't all that commonly known?
    • What a nasty lot of people, firing non-breeders.
  • I get the joke, but was there supposed to be anything actionable here? SilverserenC 19:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wondered about the quotes around "extremely loyal". Unsure. Known for "the loyalty of its customers"[ref]?
    • "As of 2002, 23%" – it's fine, but a fussy person would separate: 2002, minorities made up 23% of ...

Tony (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like i'm done with those. Any other concerns, Tony? SilverserenC 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious Concerns I have serious concerns about the balance of the article. The "controversies" section deals with a USDOJ consent agreement the company entered into. This is the second to last paragraph of the article - it is sourced to USA Today and the USDOJ. It makes up 129 words.
Alternatively, the the first paragraph on "Community involvement" is 6 paragraphs above, and it discusses all of the charities the CB donates to. It makes up 120 words. In those sentences, it discusses donating an entire ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!! of meals to Katrina recovery, the creation of "Cracker Barrel Cares Inc.," and the formation of exciting partnerships with the Wounded Warrior Project. It is sourced to exciting and dynamic newspapers like "Nation's Restaurant News," "The Montgomery Advertiser," "Charleston's The Post and Courier," "Chicago Defender," "Atlanta Inquirer," and "Tallahassee Democrat."
This is not balance, it's spin. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, in your view, what would be a good target for the sizes of the two sections? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the entirety of the first "Community involvement" paragraph as PRspeak, move the "In further attempts" to the "Diversity" section, integrate the "Controversies" section into the "Diversity," section, which should be written in chronological order as opposed to leading with the PR speak of "The company has recently focused on improving the company's diversity through training and providing resources to minority employees," reverse chron that makes the company look good, and then expand said section using sources such as [2], [3], [4], amongst many others (I just checked the New York Times). I wonder why none of the information from [5] made it into the article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should really read the talk page. First off, WWB was not involved in making the controversy section, as I stated above, so if it's too short, that's because the people who were interested in expanding it decided it was good as it currently is. Secondly, there is already a talk page consensus that the Tom Delay information is undue weight, because Cracker Barrel is only one of several companies mentioned and they are only ever mentioned. It is extremely unimportant to Cracker Barrel's history and has to do with Delay, not anything else. SilverserenC 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A local consensus does not override WP:NPOV. Reviewing the talk page does not show any convincing of the people who believed they article was unbalanced, rather they appear to have been drowned in the noise created by some other people. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna have to explain to me what information you think should be added in though. Your first reference has information that is already in the article. The second is about a very minor controversy over the guest of honor at a dinner, hardly important enough to include. The third, however, I have included in a sentence in the relevant section. It's good to have a contrast between what the vote was initially in 1993 and what it was 9 years later. Also, to better illustrate that it took nine years for the proposal to pass. SilverserenC 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a measly $1mm donation of product that was written up only in Nation's Restaurant News merits a sentence, why exactly does a minor controversy over the guest of honor at a dinner written up in, you know, The New York Times not get one? Is it because one was dug out of the deepest well by someone being paid to do so? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's because that section is specifically about what Cracker Barrel has donated to. But do you really think a minor dinner controversy is important when compared to the other controversies they've been involved in? Shouldn't the focus be on the actually major controversies? SilverserenC 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that featured articles are required to be comprehensive of what's written in reliable sources, so I'm not sure that removing everything about their community involvement is a good idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if a triviality is addressed in a reliable source, it must appear in the article? That would mean that featured articles ignore our content policies, wouldn't it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't go that far. This is part of what's tough about writing featured articles, writing an article that is both comprehensive and avoids unnecessary detail. Which details are trivial or relevant is sometimes a matter of opinion, I know I've gone back and forth on several details in the featured articles that I've written. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: supported below I peer reviewed the article back in the day, it looks like intervening edits have improved the article. Beginning a read through, a couple small notes thus far:
  • In the second paragraph you start consecutive sentences with "The chain", perhaps rephrase one.
  • Tony beat you to the punch in asking for that one. SilverserenC 19:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "in order to" a few times. Some people are Ok with that, others (myself included) would prefer to nix the "in order". Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 2000s. in the wake of incidents including charges of racial discrimination and controversy over its policy of firing gay employees" Looks like a mistake here.
  • You mean the period? Tony beat you to that one too. SilverserenC 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "New markets and refocus" and "Innovation and later growth" a lot of sentences begin "In X year, Cracker Barrel/the company did Y". You might want to introduce some variation in the structures, "Cracker Barrel did Y in X year". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped two of the sentences. Does it work better now? SilverserenC 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Locations, service, and decor" you have a one sentence paragraph, might want to try to avoid that. Also, could this part of the sentence be tightened? "Cracker Barrel maintains a warehouse in Tennessee for collecting artifacts from across the US, cataloging and storing them for future use."
  • I've merged the two sentences into the paragraph above. It's a slightly big paragraph now, but it's too short to properly turn into two paragraphs. I also reworded the sentence, but i'm not sure if its fixed the way you thought it should be. What do you think? SilverserenC 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Reception" section, you have "Cracker Barrel" six times in four sentences, might want to cut down on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure "sponsored" needs a wikilink, ditto for "race", "white customers", and "black customers"
  • "The company was the first presenting sponsor of the Grand Ole Opry." What is a "presenting sponsor"?
  • "Presenting Sponsor: is the sponsor that has its name presented just above or below that of the sponsored property. A "presenting" sponsor differs from a "title" sponsor as the Event name and the Sponsor name are not fully integrated e.g. "The Skins Game Presented by Telus" versus "Telus Skins Game"."
Unfortunately, we don't have a wikipedia article that describes it. Do you need me to do anything here? SilverserenC 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company has also provided sponsorship to other groups." Not sure how much this sentence adds to the article.
  • "The company has recently focused on improving the company's diversity" Kind of a pet peeve of mine, but it's best to give a time frame instead of using "recently".
  • It almost seems counter intuitive to me to have their efforts to stop discrimination within the company before talking about the discrimination, I'd suggest swapping the order.
  • You want me to switch the controversy and corporate overview sections? I feel like that would cause other issues. I'll do it if you really think it improves the article. SilverserenC 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, here's another idea: what I'm thinking now is that it might be a good idea to integrate the second paragraph of "Diversity" into the first subsection of "Controversies" and the first paragraph of "Diversity" into the second subsection of "Controversies". Like this version. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope Tony didn't mention any of this, I haven't read his comments yet :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin just left some comments about the article on WT:FAC. I don't agree with her 100%, but I think her comments about lack of mention of segregation in the lead and the issue of out of place chronology have merit. Maybe tightening up the "Community involvement" would help ease concerns too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the segregation to the lede. Is there anything else specific that I can do? "Tightening up" kinda doesn't say much. :P SilverserenC 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the only difference there is that the sentence about the Cracker Barrel Cares charity is removed, which I feel is pretty important for the section. SilverserenC 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looked again, yeah, I didn't mean to remove that. I think I managed to take out some of the wordiness though. Dif. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as you put the sentence about Cracker Barrel Cares back in, yeah, that's much better. More straightforward. SilverserenC 02:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm now ready to support this article's promotion to featured status. As best I can tell, it's well written and comprehensive. I've paid more attention to neutrality than I would normally do, and, as best I can tell at this point, it seems to be neutral. Good job guys. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Pyrrhus16. Only a few minor nitpicks:
  • "The peg games have been present in Cracker Barrel stores since the opening of the first store" - Perhaps remove the first 'store' in order to avoid repetition later in the sentence?
  • "Cracker Barrel is known for the loyalty of its customers;[11][13] some customers travel across the country to visit its different locations." - Perhaps remove the second 'customer' for the same reason as above?
  • "policy on a store-by-store basis from stores in Georgia and other states." - Perhaps change the third 'store' in the sentence to 'outlets' or another alternative word?
  • "An early proposal in 1993 was defeated, with 77% against and only 14% in support." - What was the position of the other 9%?
  • I've added the 9% abstaining to the sentence. SilverserenC 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on an interesting subject. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be happy to support. Pyrrhus16 20:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for taking so long to respond. Finals and all of that. I've got a plane flight in two hours, but i'll be home after that. So I should be able to fix these issues sometime tonight (Tuesday night), hopefully. SilverserenC 07:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My issues have been resolved. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is pretty much an exemplary article on a commercial company, and for that WWB Too is to be congratulated – as is Silver seren of course. I'm supporting despite that fact that the idea of having to listen to country music while having a meal fills me with horror; heck the idea of having to listen to country music at all fills me with horror. Inevitably though I do have a few issues that I think ought to be addressed:
Food and gift shop
  • "Cracker Barrel is a Southern themed chain of restaurants and retail stores ...". How many times do we need to be told that? Would it really be possible to get this far down the article and not already be aware of what Cracker Barrel is? Shouldn't that be "Southern-themed" anyway?
  • I've added the dash there and i've also rearranged the sentence a bit, see if that helps. And Southern is only mentioned twice above that, once in the lede, which is correct because it's a summary of the article, and once in the very beginning of the history section, when discussing the creator's inspirations for it. I don't think that's all too much, really. And, well...Southern is kinda important to it. SilverserenC 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the "Southern" I'm complaining about, it's being told repeatedly that Cracker Barrel is a themed chain of restaurants and retail stores. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you think it should be reworded then? SilverserenC 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd drop the "of restaurants and retail stores" and leave it at "As a Southern-themed chain, Cracker Barrel serves traditional Southern comfort food ...". Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Business model and partnerships
  • "Cracker Barrel is a chain of wholly owned locations offering sit-down dining and retail." As above, we seem to be beaten over the head repeatedly with this. Surely by this point in the article we know what Cracker Barrel is?
Alleged racial and sexual discrimination
  • "Following the suits, Cracker Barrel stores began displaying a sign in their front foyer explaining its non-discrimination policy ...". That really doesn't work: the subject is "Cracker Barrel stores", so the "its" isn't right. Maybe change it to "the company's ..."?. Secondly, the stores don't all share a single foyer, therefore "their foyer" isn't correct. Why not "their foyers"?
  • I changed it to "the company's" and I changed "their front foyer" to "the front foyer". I think that works better. SilverserenC 22:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Cracker Barrel also paid a $2 million settlement ...". Why does it say "also", when the previous paragraph was apparently talking events that happened in 2004?
  • "Since the beginning of 2000s ..." Now that's really awkward. At the very least it needs to be "the 2000s", but better to recast it; perhaps something like "since the early part of this century", or "since the early 2000s"?
  • "In the early 2000s, the company began outreach to minority employees ...". That clashes with the sentence I complained about above. I'd suggest swapping this sentence and the one before it around, and dropping the introductory "In the early 2000s".
  • I've reworded and rearranged some things. Let me know if it looks alright. SilverserenC 23:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better, but it still doesn't quite work for me. What does a company "improving its diversity" actually mean? Sounds like PR bullshit to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe if it said "improving its image on diversity"? Because that's pretty much what it's doing. SilverserenC 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would do for me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As WWB Too has been so open about his involvement with this article, I'd be very interested to see what Cracker Barrel have made of this process, regardless of the outcome. It might teach us a lot. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they actually know about it, since they aren't paying him for this. But there's probably some sort of before/after revenue comparison that could be made. SilverserenC 00:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And just for the benefit of our colonial friends, prepositions are important. I said "made of", not "made from". Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you meant "made" as in what do they think of the FA process? SilverserenC 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this another one of these "two nations divided by a common language" misunderstandings? I find it hard to believe that a company with the profile of Cracker Barrel wouldn't be aware of what's going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd be surprised. But since WWB isn't working for them at the moment, I don't believe he informed them about this FAC or anything like that. So it's highly possible that they have no idea this is going on. You might want to ask him though. SilverserenC 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's not presently working for Cracker Barrel then how would he know? My point quite simply was that a large company very likely has a PR team watching its profile, and it would be interesting to know how that team has viewed this process. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I suppose, since they past interacted with this article, they probably watch it at this point. But for other companies, I think you'd be surprised at how many large companies likely have no idea about the goings-on in their Wikipedia articles. But, yes, it would be interesting to know what Cracker Barrel thinks about this. Thinking of using the information for future statistic analysis? SilverserenC 03:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally supportive on the basis of the prose. Attempts have been made to achieve better coverage, and therefore neutrality. Slight concern over the thematic smoothness.

  • "the chain chose to locate its restaurants"—redundancy, and avoid ch ch.
  • "In 2000 and 2001, the company addressed staffing and infrastructure issues related to this rapid growth by implementing a more rigorous recruitment strategy"—is this where discriminatory practices should be mentioned? I see the racist thing does get a mention further down. Why is the section title "Alleged racial and sexual discrimination"? Is anyone disputing that there was discrimination? This looks like spin: after all, no company's gonna settle for $2M when there was no discrimination. Sexual discrimination, too, is usually on the basis of gender rather than sexual orientation, but I can live with that wording. "has increased its efforts to improve its image on diversity by providing training and resources to minority employees"—bit awkward, the wording. And I'd have thought majority training would be more in order than training those discriminated against. It's the bully-boys who do it. Or is this just native Spanish-speakers we're talking about here. I get a little confused about the thematic treatment of the discrimination thing: it's as though these matters have been grafted on after the main text was written.
  • You think something about discrimination should be added into the history section? The racist stuff isn't in there either. The point is that it's addressed specifically in another section. SilverserenC 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not necessary, since it's prominent in the lead, I see. Tony (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed alleged. SilverserenC 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to fix the wording there. And, yeah, the training was for the minority employees. I think it did include English language training, among other things. Because, remember, the discrimination wasn't coming from the other white employees, but from the Cracker Barrel company itself not hiring minorities. SilverserenC 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of "also"s; some are OK, but here, it's jarring: "Also in 2010, Cracker Barrel established Cracker Barrel Cares Inc., an employee-funded non-profit organization that provides support to Cracker Barrel employees.[47] Cracker Barrel has also formed ...". Suggest "In the same year Cracker ...". Here's another, which could be just removed: "The 2011 survey also noted that"
  • Fixed both of those. With that, there are only 4 also's left in the entire article. SilverserenC 03:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about ""has provided training and resources to minority employees, to improve its image with respect to diversity" ("with respect to" isn't particularly nice, but "on" seemed a bit loose. Either is fine, I think, unless you can think of a third way that's better.) Tony (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in your sentence, but kept it as "on". It just sounds better to me than "with respect to", which sounds too wordy in the sentence. SilverserenC 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lesson in care about balance in corporate articles. I hope it ends up being promoted to featured status. Tony (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - An image review and spotchecks are required. Graham Colm (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone we can contact to do those? SilverserenC 10:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in my Job Description :) but here you are. Graham Colm (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: By September 1997, Cracker Barrel had 314 restaurants, and aimed to increase the number of stores by approximately 50 per year over the following five years.
  • Source: The company, which started when Chairman Dan Evins opened his first restaurant in a Lebanon gas station in 1969, now has 314 restaurants extending from Milford, Conn., to Goodyear, Ariz., all of them company owned. It plans to add 50 a year for the next five years.
  • Article: In addition, it expanded into new markets through the establishment of more traditional Cracker Barrel locations, the majority of them outside the South, and tested alterations to its menus to adapt to new regions.
  • Source: The company has been learning other lessons as it expands -- for example, that Southern staples such as grits and fried okra don't cut it in the North. When the first Cracker Barrels opened in Wisconsin and Minnesota, sales were only about 60 percent of those in the Southeast...They then try to reproduce local favorites, such as Reuben sandwiches in upstate New York and eggs with salsa in Texas.
  • Article: Cracker Barrel is known for the loyalty of its customers, with some traveling across the country to visit its different locations
  • Source: A key ingredient in Cracker Barrel's success is the loyalty of its customers. Many are travelers -- most Cracker Barrels are right off an interstate -- who look for the familiar Cracker Barrel sign promising ``Good Country Cookin'. About half the chain's traffic is made up of tourists, who tend to be looser with their money than locals.
  • Article: Cracker Barrel has supported a wide range of charities, through one-off donations, promotional events, and partnerships with charitable organizations.
  • Source: Subscription required, but fact verified by Google searches
  • Article: In 2004, an investigation by the US Justice Department found evidence that Cracker Barrel had been segregating customer seating by race; seating or serving white customers before seating or serving black customers; providing inferior service to black customers, and allowing white servers to refuse to wait on black customers.
  • Source: The government said its investigations showed that Cracker Barrel segregated customers by race; allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; and seated or served white customers before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers. Justice further alleged that, in many cases, managers directed, participated or acquiesced in those practices. (Posted 5/7/2004 2:18 AM, Updated 5/7/2004 3:12 AM)
  • Article:..the firm has provided a scholarship through the National Black MBA Association
  • Source: Cracker Barrel is honored to present this scholarship...We're proud of our association with Araba and the National Black MBA Association.
  • Article: Its chief executive officer, Sandra Cochran, is the second woman in Tennessee to hold that office in a publicly traded company, as of August 2011.
  • Source: Sandra B. Cochran will be named CEO of the Lebanon-based restaurant chain Cracker Barrel next month, becoming the first woman to ascend to the top rung of a publicly traded company in Middle Tennessee and the second in the state.

Images These have appropriate licences. The one of Dolly Parton caused me to pause for thought as it was hard to believe that it was "taken or made during the course of the person's official duties". But further investigations verified this. Graham Colm (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you so very much for doing this. SilverserenC 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the other co-nominator, I'd also like to say: thanks! WWB Too (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cracker_Barrel_Old_Country_Store/archive1&oldid=1138458151"