Talk:Cracker Barrel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposing expansion and improvement

It's been a few years since this article received any sustained attention, and while it is tagged now as needing additional sources (true) it's also far short of giving a full and accurate picture of Cracker Barrel's history and operations. I would like to help with that. I've actually been hired by Cracker Barrel to research, write and work with the community to lead this as a project for them. For this reason I'm subject to the conflict of interest guideline and deferential to the paid editing essay. It is my intention to gain consensus before making any direct edits.

The result of my efforts to date is a proposed replacement article now in my user space; I have commented-out the non-free logo and disabled the categories, but otherwise I recommend replacing the current article with the draft here: User:WWB_Too/Cracker_Barrel_Old_Country_Store. This new version is considerably longer, so here is a fairly detailed guide to what's new:

• Updated financial data and filled in relevant parameters in the infobox.

• Entirely new History section, gives a full background to the company's long history, development + nationwide expansion.

• The Restaurants section is rewritten version of current Format and extent which was under-written, under-cited and oddly named. It is now fully cited with subsections addressing food, locations, theme, and public reception.

• I've rewritten some material currently found in the Controversy section and given it the more descriptive name Diversity and discrimination claims, providing in fact more detail than currently exists, and seeking to bring a more neutral tone to the subject matter. The current treatment is inadequate and simply inaccurate. Feedback welcome.

• However, I have removed two sections I deemed not relevant or appropriate. These are currently titled Alleged unlawful political campaign contributions and Food scare.

1. With regard to the campaign contributions, even the current article states that the relevant charges were dropped.
2. Similarly, the food scare was extremely short-lived, and the article certainly doesn't state otherwise.

I think it's fair to say these were not significant events, and are most likely examples of recentism grown long in the tooth. I believe their continued inclusion accords them undue weight. I am more than happy to discuss details if you have questions.

• Entirely new Corporate overview section, addressing Cracker Barrel's business model and sponsorships.

• Regarding photographs, the current article has five. I've reduced this to two. The first and the third are fine, and I've rearranged them to accompany sections where they are relevant. The current second photo is a contemporary photo of a Citgo station where indeed there once was a Cracker Barrel, but it adds little understanding now. I'm working on obtaining the rights to use an older photo that can replace it. Then the fourth and fifth photos are just not very good, and I'm working on finding better replacements for those as well.

• An editor in October added a detail and citation about the "peg solitaire" games at Cracker Barrel, which was a quality addition, so I've now incorporated both into my draft.

• Lastly, many of the sources were located via the LexisNexis newspaper database (Nexis.com) and so are not available on the web. If you have any questions about the sources used to support what I've written, I can quote excerpts as needed.

I hope this adequately explains all of the changes I've made. However, as noted above, I'm more than happy to talk through any particulars. For your convenience, again here is the link to my proposed draft. If you agree this draft is an improvement on the current one, I'd like to encourage you to copy the version out of my user space and replace it in the main space, or give a clear go-ahead for me to do the same. Thanks very much, WWB Too (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent update to the article, you did a very good job. I have moved your draft into place and re-assessed the article as a B-Class article based on your hard work. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was even faster than I had hoped! It's very much appreciated, and I'm glad you agreed this was ready to go. I'll see what I can do for locating quality images to release under an acceptable license, and if any other editor who stops by has questions or comments, I'm more than happy to discuss specifics of this article. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reviewed this article because of its COI origins, and am satisfied that it is neutral in tone and content, and otherwise eminently excellent and unobjectionalble. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why I replaced the COI tag

As long as the Tom DeLay stuff in particular remains censored, and the racial and homophobic stuff downplayed, I want it made clear who is to blame for it, and what his motivation was. This person is an openly-admitted hireling of the subject, whose job is to make it pretty with lots of trivial fluff, while covering up as much ugliness as possible, or surrounding it with meaningless padding about Uncle Herschel and how many menus there are. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the comment on your talk page and added in the mention of charges for illegal campaign donations that were later dropped.

Other than that, I think that just being listed in HRC's index does not merit mention. Similarly there's some stuff in in the article that seems to not really add anything other than promotion, for example "The company celebrated its 30th anniversary in 1999, and, to commemorate the event, it launched a series of community-focused activities including ..." It could be worse, though. a13ean (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Going from a shamelessly overt, headquarters-sanctioned pro-discrimination policy to being included in the HRC index is evidence of progress, and it's unreasonable of us not to admit that. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The 30th anniversary is under the history section, so it seems ok to me. Also, others have it too. --Neo139 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That mostly falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the section which mentions that customers know the menu by heart and keep visiting for twenty years etc. ? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As the editor with the declared COI here, I'm sorry to see the warning templates added, although I hope that the changes to come are sufficient to allow their removal. Although most of the material in the current draft is mine, I don't make any claim to WP:OWN it in that sense. It so happens that a lot of their coverage in third-party sources is quite positive, and I endeavored to write it in a non-promotional, encyclopedic way. I'm curious to see how this plays out, and if I can answer any questions, please ask. Meanwhile, I do want to add now that a13ean's {{fact}} tag is asking for verification that is already provided: it is the immediately following citation, which is available online here. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted the "by heart" thing. Thanks for pointing that out. The "keep visiting for twenty years" is just a sourced example of the previous sentence that claim "extreme loyal", and is written like "journal X said Y" rather than "The customers are Z", so its ok to me. I also deleted the part that said something like "the brand focus on customer service". It ads nothing to the article, and is the other thing that sounded like advertisement. I finished reading the article and I'm fine with the removal of tags, but I would prefer other opinions and not be bold in this case.--Neo139 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But I have more concerns regarding the amount of fluff present int the article. For example; Breakfast is served all day, and there are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner. Since the first restaurant opened, the menu has featured Southern specialties, including biscuits, fried chicken and catfish. Is this an encyclopaedic article or a menu? There are many more examples of this type of puffery. Also many of the citations are not accessible online. This is concerning. Approximately one third of the community involvement section describes how Cracker Barrel sponsors charities for organisations of Black people. This smells like cherry-picking to counter charges of racism. I would argue that until all this flood of puffery is removed from the article the tags should remain indefinitely. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

About the "Breakfast is served all day", other companies like McDonalds only sell their breakfast menu till 11:30am (at least where I live). So the inclusion of that information is, to me, relevant. About the menu, there is a very low consensus about that. Some articles like List of McDonald's products survived 2 AfDs. There were good arguments both sides, but that was long time ago, so I don't know. About citations not available online, the solution is briefly quoting the material in the article, per WP:REF. There are not many articles with these. I recently saw one on the Spanish wikipedia here. About the "sponsor black people" is obvious they tried to counter racism accusations, but if the actually do that, and we have a source, then it's a fact and wouldn't be neutral not to include it.--Neo139 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Dr. K, a number of these sources can be found online, but on websites that arguably violate copyright, which is why I didn't include those links. The Tennessean link I provided above is one example, and in other cases the same was true, plus only cached versions are online. Knowing that WP:RELIABLE does not require that sources be available online, the majority of this research was done using Lexis-Nexis. Regarding Cracker Barrel's involvement in the African-American community, one such source is "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store offers $25,000 scholarship through National Black MBA program" from the Chicago Defender, and it's viewable as Google cached content here [1]. Hope that helps, WWB Too (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Neo: I didn't say not to include it. I said that cherry picking the donations to Black organisations to add to the section and dominating it with black news without context as to how much of their money out of the total budget available for charity goes to black causes, is misleading. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think is not misleading only if the controversy stays where it is now, just before "Community involvement" section. It would be cherry picking if we suppress the controversy section. (something that will not happen given the amount of attention this article has attract).--Neo139 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also concerned with the reliability of the sources such as It’s official: Cracker Barrel coming to Morehead!. First who ever heard of the morehead news. Second can you imagine a really reliable source like NYT coming up with similar headlines? Community newpapers carry hype to stratospheric levels sometimes. We don't have to carry this stuff into the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

@Neo: Talking about the menu, I would like to ask you for a clarification: Do you think including the details of the menu items like shrimps, eggs etc. is also relevant encyclopaedically? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As a thumb rule, if a food chain is famous/successful for something specifically, that should be included in the article. For example, the article of McDonalds must mention the Big Mac somewhere. I'm not familiar with Cracker Barrel, if they have a big menu, only the most important items could be included. If they have a small menu, then is not that bad to include a few lines about it. From the article it isn't clear in the chain primary business is the food or the gift stores. If it is 90% gift stores, 10% food, then we could avoid the menu at all.--Neo139 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Big Mac" is iconic, so maybe we can keep a few iconic menu items and skip the rest. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On menus: restaurants are like manufacturers except their products are food that is immediately consumed, so the discussion of a restaurant's menu can be included. Generally in restaurant articles we only discuss specific products if there is a valid reason to do so, like the aforementioned Big Mac; otherwise it is preferable that the article not cover specific menu items and focus on stuff like the development of the menu, the genre etc. Look at the Burger King products article for what you should do as opposed to the McDonald's products article which you shouldn't for an example of what I mean. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your analysis makes sense to me. I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the edits of Nomoskedasticity. I think they are great and IMO they are steps in the right direction. The edits eliminated a lot of corporate puffery. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The edits eliminated a lot of corporate puffery. Or, in the alternative, the edit eliminated a lot of referenced information none of which appeared to be puffery. It depends on your tastes and imagination. I can well conceive of audiences that might have some level of interest in the removed content - students of marketing or catering, for instance - but I guess you're not inclined for us to serve their interests. Would you care to provide an update on where you think you've got up to in your COI identification and slaying pursuit? When might we anticipate your agreement to remove the tags? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this is not a marketing or catering course but an encyclopaedic article. Further, judging by the tone of your comment and by your remark: I guess you're not inclined for us to serve their interests which is personal in nature I think you need to relax and tone it down. I came here to improve the article, not to be subjected to abuse and sarcasm. Also, although I agree completely with the edits by Nomoskedasticity on the basis of corporate puffery as I mentioned, the edits were made by Nomoskedasticity. Why are you then addressing me and not Nomoskedasticity? Ask Nomoskedasticity these questions if you want more details, not me. I am not their proxy. Further asking me Would you care to provide an update on where you think you've got up to in your COI identification and slaying pursuit?, a blatant personal attack reeking with sarcasm by the way, is unfair. I did not place the COI tag in the article. Orange Mike did. Get your facts straight then before you attack other people. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course we all came here to improve the article. It seems we just didn't agree in the definition or "corporate puffery". Relax and enjoy the lecture of Professor Wikipedia.^^--Neo139 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions re sources

There are a number of sources in the final section ("Diversity") that are not provided as clickable links. In principle this is not a problem -- it is not required that sources be available on-line. But I wonder if User:WWB Too (I assume he is the one who added the material in question) can tell us anything about how he acquired these sources, so that I (or others) could check them if desired. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I made a similar point above diff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He already said above that he used Lexis-Nexus for a majority of them. You should probably check there first. Silverseren^C 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about two in particular: 1. "Cracker Barrel serves up funding". Tallahassee Democrat, and 2. "Cracker Barrel says 'goodbye, glass ceiling'". The Tennessean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I can check and email them to you if you like. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No reply from WWBToo? I appreciate Smartse's offer, but I'd like to hear what WWBToo has to say, particularly about the two I indicate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if you let him know about this section on his talk page. Silverseren^C 00:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomo has asked, on my Talk page, how I located these two sources. Silver is correct: all of my offline sources came from Lexis-Nexis. As I mentioned there (and upthread on this page) the Tennessean article happens to be online here, but I'm pretty sure Ongo.com would be considered WP:COPYVIO. Happy to answer any more questions if I can. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well -- now I'm puzzled. I also have access to Nexis -- but I don't get any results when I put the headlines for these two articles in a Nexis search. I just checked another one: Stiff, Ashby (September 29, 2006). "Breakfast line forms early at Cracker Barrel". Tallahassee Democrat: p. 17D -- not in Nexis. And another: Strother, Susan G. (February 1, 1998). "President: Cracker Barrel is Rolling Along". Orlando Sentinel (Florida): p. H1. -- not in Nexis. Now, I can see that the latter one exists [2] -- but then it's very strange that it's presented as an off-line source, thus apparently one found via Nexis. I wonder if I'm the only one who has doubts about the verifiability of some of this Wikipedia article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, I'm puzzled as well. I find all of these articles easily via site search. And I've found a permalink for each:

• Cracker Barrel serves up funding Tallahassee Democrat (Florida) November 13, 2008 Thursday
• Cracker Barrel says 'goodbye, glass ceiling' The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) August 2, 2011 Tuesday
• Breakfast line forms early at Cracker Barrel Tallahassee Democrat (Florida) September 29, 2006 Friday
• PRESIDENT: CRACKER BARREL IS ROLLING ALONG Orlando Sentinel (Florida) February 1, 1998 Sunday, METRO.

Non-subscribers won't be able to access these, but you should be able. WWB Too (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll check tomorrow when I'm on campus. Of course, I've already checked, and they weren't there... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Use Archives at Google News - though most is paywalled, the headers are all free with a part of the lede in each case. Collect (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to check out the draft version, where i've added a number of URL links to previously blank Lexis-Nexus found references. Still working on the Tennessean references though, they changed their website system at some point and it caused all of their article links to break and their archives system is utterly useless. Silverseren^C 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Messrs. Beam and Daniels are the culprits? <g>. So far all the headlines seem reasonably self-explanatory AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

On campus where I can access Nexis, I still get no results when I search on the titles of those articles. If others do, fine -- it would alleviate any concerns that these references might have been fabricated. (Perhaps my Nexis results are different because I'm not currently in the US.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"President: Cracker Barrel Is Rolling Along"

That one I already found a while ago. The Tennessean ones i'm having trouble with because of the website change I mentioned above. I have no idea what the issues are with the Tallahassee Democrat. Silverseren^C 16:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement tag

Is there really any reason for this tag to be in the article? I read through the article and it sounds perfectly fine to me as it is right now. There are a few spots that are basically just general editor disagreement on what information should be included in an article on a subject that is both a restaurant and a store at the same time. Silverseren^C 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I placed the advert tag because I think that there is an inherent imbalance in the article. It is not only the tone of some sections talking about partnerships and all kind of goody-goody corporate stuff but the shear quantity of the mom-and-apple-pie stuff pushes this article a little on the advert side for my taste and makes the controversies only minor by comparison. I am not sure if adding all this feel-good volume was intentional so that the controversies could be muffled by the sheer volume of the positive and soft material but I think this imbalance should be corrected before the advert tag is removed. I think Herostratus made a similar comment on WWBtoo's talkpage some time ago. However given that this is a wiki I will defer to consensus if other editors think that the article is balanced and that all the present stuff contains no fluff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the controversies section, clocking in at three sections, each with a fairly nice paragraph, is perfectly balanced for an article. Any larger and it would bring into question weight issues. Since you're the one that added the advert tag, can you please list out specifically the sentences and words that you have issues with so that we can get to work on fixing them? I want to be able to submit this article to peer review in order for it to eventually go up for GA and I would like all issues relating to the tags to be fixed before doing so (though I suppose starting a peer review would be okay even with tags on there). Silverseren^C 04:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think putting it up for GA review is a great idea and a good opportunity for experts to advise on the issues I talked about. If they think my points are wrong they can remove the advert tag. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why I need you to list those points. They can't be dealt with if you don't state exactly what parts are the issue. We want to fix the article, so you need to explain what specific parts need to be fixed. Silverseren^C 04:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I explained to you in my comments above that I feel that there is a lot of unencyclopaedic feel-good stuff in the article. I don't think that I have to explain to you point by point or section by section which parts are fluff, especially since GA experts will review it and if they don't agree with me they will remove the tag. Simple. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I guess. *shrugs* I'll go start a peer review first then. Silverseren^C 04:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. BTW, if any of the GA reviewers feel the tag is not warranted I will not challenge their removal of it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember, this is peer review, not GA. The GA won't be started until after the peer review (and there's generally just the one GA reviewer). But, it's similar anyways and we'll be able to see if other users agree with you or not. I noted the advert issue in the peer review. Silverseren^C 05:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It is still ok even under peer review. My offer still stands. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

COI tag redux

Since it seems the issues noted above with the COI tag, namely the controversies section, have been resolved, I went ahead and removed the tag. I also changed the talk page connected contributor tag (at the top of the page) to yes for editing, since WWBToo's draft would pretty much count as editing, as it's asking about having contributed in the first place. I hope that squares things away with that. I'm planning on submitting the article to peer review soon, working toward GA and, potentially, FA. Silverseren^C 04:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Press releases as sources

Nomoskedasticity has removed several cited sources that are based on press releases. In regards to using press releases for sources, I want to point out the policy WP:PSTS which covers this. Press releases, which are primary in nature, can be used to verify information but not establish notability. Additionally, press releases do do meet the criteria set forth in WP:Selfpub when they are used to verify information about the organization that published them, which is how they are being used in the article. The {{cite press release}} template clearly states that the source is a press release when it it is transcluded to the references section.

I would ask that Nomoskedasticity please stop removing these sources. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Press releases do not normally meet WP:RS: they are quite obviously self-published, which means that they are "Sources that are usually not reliable" (see the section heading where this subsection appears). The fact that they are self-published also means that it is entirely appropriate to consider a judgment as to whether they are unduly self-serving. This is not difficult to understand. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They're the type of source where it depends entirely on what information they're being use for. So...what were they being used for? Silverseren^C 09:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about things like this edit which removed "has received awards for its food and customer service" (cited to a press release), and removed one of two citations for "...and partnerships with charitable organizations", namely a press release titled "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Donates 2,000 'Princess The Bear' Beanie Babies to the Make-A-Wish Foundation". Removing such self-serving pap is necessary as the alternative would be to excise articles like this from the encyclopedia. Many organizations have a budget for doing Good Deeds—there needs to be a reason before such standard fare is highlighted here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. The awards seem like things that might want to be noted, though. Though they should be sourced to, if there aren't any secondary sources on the subject, the award website announcements themselves and not a press release or other type of source directly related to Cracker Barrel. Silverseren^C 10:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? If there isn't any independent coverage of the awards then we probably shouldn't mention them. There are so many awards handed out to businesses but very few of them get picked up by anyone but the organisation dishing them out and the business receiving them. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously only if they're important awards. But I can see there being a number of important awards in the food and customer service business that just aren't commented on by secondary sources. Silverseren^C 12:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But how can we judge if they are important if they recieve no secondary coverage? Surely if they don't get secondary coverage they are, almost by definition, unimportant? SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not trying to judge the awards via notability, but by importance, as in, are they considered important within the industry itself. I suppose it should be possible to find industry specific secondary sources on the awards, but i'm not sure if those would pop up on Google News. Might be a bit tougher to find them. But, anyways, it doesn't matter until we know what awards we're dealing with. We can't determine if they're important or not without knowing what they are. Silverseren^C 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Every industry gives these out; but with the exception of awards like the Oscars, the Newbery Medal and the Hugos, nobody outside the industry (and few within) really cares about someone having won "the coveted 'Silver Sow Award'"! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely - if an award is important then we should be able to find sources to create an article about the award. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with that. I just wanted to post out that the sources on the awards might be in trade publications that wouldn't pop up on Google news. And I disagree with Orange Mike. There are a number of industry specific awards that are indeed considered important in specific industries. Every once in a while those awards go mainstream, like the Michelin Stars did, but that doesn't make the other awards that are intensely covered within the industry unimportant. Silverseren^C 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is, press releases are not the right kind of source, certainly for the sort of work they were being asked to do in the instances I and others deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Silverseren^C 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Nomination

Please note that this article has been nominated for peer review here. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As indicated in this series of edits, the Peer Review has now been closed, with a number of changes having been made to the draft. I have now copied that draft into the article. Since the history of the article and draft are overlapping, a history merge is not recommended per WP:HISTMERGE. The draft version will remain in user space to provide proper attribution for its contributions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I will start this. Looks good!

Beginning remarks

• There is at least one dead link.
• Sites requiring subscription to access material should be labeled as such.

(will continue)

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link. And i'll get to work on the subscription ones. There's probably quite a few. Silverseren^C 00:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we got all of the subscription needed ones done, and I also replaced that other dead link you noted. Silverseren^C 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

more

• "In addition to the Corner Market stores" - the Corner Market stores have not been mentioned yet - what are they?
• "aiming to increase the number of stores by approximately 50 per year in the following five years, according to The Wall Street Journal' - this goes to Highbeam, not the Wall Street Journal, and requires a subscription.
• "Cracker Barrel closed its Corner Market operations in 1997" - still don't know what these Corner Markets are.

I'll leave the corner market info to WWB, but as for Highbeam, it's basically just a news aggregator. That article there is from the Wall Street Journal. It's not published by Highbeam or anything, they're just hosting a copy of it. As for the subscription, working on it. Silverseren^C 01:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

a few more re citations

• ref 17 freezes my browser - can't access it
• and a stone fireplace with a deer head displayed above the mantel.[31] - not in citation

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By ref 17, you mean the Houston Chronicle one? It's working fine for me.

As for the deer head thing and ref 31, i've found something interesting. Yes, that reference doesn't have anything about a deer head in it, but if you do this search on Google News Archive, you find another archived version of the article with just the first paragraph, but that one mentions the deer head right there. So I don't know what's up with the Local Eats copy, it's weird. I think i'm just going to remove it from that section and leave it referencing the 19 years thing elsewhere , and then use the archived version I linked there to reference the deer head thing. That should fix any issues. Silverseren^C 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, is that better? Now we have two references for the same article, but hosted at separate places. However, that same article in those two places doesn't seem to have the same information, so...yeah, this is weird. Silverseren^C 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• Can you do away with both? Are they necessary if they are inconsistent? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since WWB was the one that was using the ref and he was using it off of Lexis Nexus (i'm the one that pulled in the Local Eats copy), i'm of the opinion that the archive version has both sets of information, so i'm fully up for removing the Local Eats one, which evidently sucks at hosting copies, and just using the archived version for both sentences. It already has a subscription needed tag on it as well. Would you like me to do that? Silverseren^C 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a few more

• "The company had its 30th anniversary in 1999" - celebrated?

• Done. Silverseren^C 21:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "nationwide book drive" - what did it do with the books?
• "It was announced on January 17, 2012 that company founder, Dan W. Evins, had died due to bladder cancer, according to his wife." - not sure where this sentence should go (But "Innovation and later growth" doesn't seen like the right heading.) - I assume that the company has a corporate structure and Evins was more of a figurehead as founder, if anything.
• what is "OBIE Hall of Fame Award"?
  • Just took a quick glance, and it looks like an award by the OAAA for best billboard design. I had no idea there was such a prize. It was tricky to pin down details about the "OBIE Hall of Fame Award", but this video seems to explain things more or less. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• "casual dining market and also markets itself" - repeat of "market"

• Changed to "advertises". Silverseren^C 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• gay rights - sometimes the article links to Homosexuality and at another to LGBT rights by country or territory. Does Crackerbarrel include transgender, for example?
  • I changed the link targets to what looked like more logical choices here. Not certain about the T in LGBT though. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • this site seems to say that they include transgender people, not sure if it is an RS or not. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, you source does say transgender. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Numerous sources require subscription

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Interesting article, well written. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :3 I've gone ahead and taken out the Local Eats ref and just used the archived one. That should fix that and now people at FA won't complain later. Silverseren^C 17:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Racial discrimination section

I have replaced the section with my edits. Considering the length of copy devoted to the menu, the gift shop, decor, locations, service, etc., I believe that an explanation of the Civil Rights violation settlement is appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The quotes are far too long though and you're giving undue weight to a single source. The article isn't supposed to have huge controversy sections. All of the other stuff you mention are things that all restaurant articles of this level should have. Silverseren^C 22:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree with Gandydancer. I passed the article on the basis that the coverage was balanced. I've reverted to the GA version. If Gandydancer insists on adding material disproportionate to the rest of the article, it will have to go to GAR to be reassessed. The sexual, racial and sexual orientation discrimination issues are covered adequately and in a balanced manner, and there are sources the reader can consult for more detail. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Overemphasized?? This organization is found guilty of some extremely nasty racial discrimination and punished quite severely, and you think it is overemphasis to include a tight, cohesive, well cited paragraph that discusses the matter in a bit of detail? But talking about "peg games" available to customers is not? If covering the controversies surrounding this company sends it back to GAR, then so be it. To my way of thinking Gandydancer's edits were a good step toward bringing this article BACK into balance, and away from the fluff piece that it has become. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I note also that Silver seren was working with Gandydancer to create a compromise, and he/she should be commended for doing so. Let us work together on this, rather than simply reverting well-cited edits we don't like. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Was there anything wrong with my compromise version? It explicitly stated that the Justice Department found them in violation, which I agree should be mentioned, but it also didn't have the lengthy, unnecessary quotes that the current version has. Silverseren^C 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't consider removing almost everything I wrote a compromise. I have no problem removing the copy about "approximately fifty different Cracker Barrel restaurants in seven states" as a compromise, but I believe that "Specifically, they found that Cracker Barrel had "allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; segregated customer seating by race; seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier; provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated; and treated African-Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel's food or service less favorably than white customers who lodged similar complaints" should be kept in the article. To suggest that it's important and appropriate to include, "Breakfast is served all day, and there are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner. Since the first restaurant opened, the menu has featured Southern specialties, including biscuits, fried chicken and catfish;[6] seasonal and regional menu items were added during the 1980s and 1990s", while telling me that the inclusion of absolutely outrageous racial discrimination is so inappropriate that the article would need to be sent back for a second GAR is...is very disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That comment rather implies that you have a personal, negative interest in Cracker Barrel. The point of this article isn't to cover "outrageous racial discrimination", but to serve as a well-written overview of everything about Cracker Barrel. That includes the controversies, yes, but also things like their menus and decor and other information like that. We shouldn't be trying to make an expansive section about the racial discrimination issue. That would violate due weight. Silverseren^C 23:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer. I believe that the amount of fluff in the article, (all the talk about decor, games, menu details etc.), overpowers by sheer volume alone the serious issues involved. I also think that the discrimination issues are not adequately covered, whereas the fluff is over-represented. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is fluff? This went through a peer review, where numerous people went over it, and had a separate reviewer for GA. And what exactly is wrong with what's covered on the discrimination information? There's no need to have a huge amount of long quotes in the section, when the information can be summarized in a much shorter fashion. Silverseren^C 23:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss Gandydancer's quote from above? I will repeat it for your convenience:

"Breakfast is served all day, and there are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner. Since the first restaurant opened, the menu has featured Southern specialties, including biscuits, fried chicken and catfish;[6] seasonal and regional menu items were added during the 1980s and 1990s"

That's fluff. And if we can dedicate whole pages to fluff we can accommodate human rights issues a bit more broadly that we do now. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's information on what the restaurant serves and when it serves it. Why would this information not be included in an article about a restaurant? Information being about human rights doesn't mean it deserves more weight. Especially when the section is predicated on a single source for all of those quotes. Silverseren^C 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I tell you not to include it? I don't think so. I just said that the human rights issues are not covered in adequate detail compared to the feel-good fluffy stuff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What amount of detail do you think is necessary? A 57 word quote seems excessive when you don't need to have the specific deliberation in the article. All you need in there is that they violated the Civil Rights by discriminating against customers because of race and they were forced to do such and such because of it. Silverseren^C 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the details should include more in-depth coverage of all aspects of the cases involved. I don't think glossing-over many of the details is a good idea. In my opinion the current presentation of the legal issues is far too short. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) I never would have passed the article if I thought it was going to be used to prove a point. A solution would be to send it to GAR and let others decide. Since Cracker Barrel also allegedly sexually discriminated in terms of hiring and promotion as well as discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, and allowed sexual harassment, equal space should be given to those charges. The article needs balance and no undue emphasis on one alleged aspect. I think GAR is the solution. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• But does GAR do decisions on which version is correct? They do delists, but if one version is preferred, then they're not choosing on a delist, but something else entirely. An RfC might be a better choice. Silverseren^C 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• They look at things like undue weight, whether the sources are being used correctly etc. Sometimes they fix the article where they see it's deficient or remove POV. But I feel bad that I've passed an article that is now clearly pointy. I would prefer it to be delisted if it is going to become a POV piece. It should be compared with other articles on corporations, most of which have been sued at one time or another for various types of discrimination. This is not exactly a problem unusual to Cracker Barrel. Wasn't some city just recently sued because it's sheriff has discriminated for years? An article that is being edit warred over POV content should not be a GA. I'm trying to figure out how to sent it to GAR. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article was previously essentially an attack piece on Cracker Barrel, which we attempted to make neutral through the peer review and such. Silverseren^C 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GAR might be a good place to revisit inclusion of the fact that Cracker Barrel was indicted of illegal campaign contributions. This indictment was prominently covered by such RS as the NYT, NPR and many others, yet it was argued that this information did not belong in the article. The indictment, and the subsequent dropping of charges by the Justice Department, really should be in the article. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The campaign contributions issue was about Delay. Two of the sources in the section didn't even mention Cracker Barrel. The indictment was covered by a lot of places, yes, but they were focused almost exclusively on Delay himself. This is definitely a subject that is undue weight. It belongs in the Delay campaign article, not here. Silverseren^C 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In this NYT article, the Cracker Barrel indictment is brought up in the second sentence. Clearly, this was prominent coverage focusing on Cracker Barrel as well as the other indicted companies. This coverage certainly was not focused only on Delay and his staff. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Eight companies were charged - including Sears ... there is no indication that CB was especially culpable at all, the mention seems rather counched as an aside naming them as among a group of eight. In fact, I find no stress on this in any of the eight company articles - is there a particular reason to place it in this one and not in the other seven? If not, I would suggest it has quite likely deemed of trivial importance at best to the company articles entirely. Collect (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not accurate to characterize a federal indictment on charges of illegal campaign contributions as "trivia," especially when it is covered by many reliable sources including the NYT. I note that, in most of cases I have seen, the coverage went something like, "Sears, Cracker Barrel and six other companies were indicted..." So, we may conclude that Sears and Cracker Barrel got the brunt of the coverage. While these indictments, and the subsequent dropping of charges, certainly merits consideration to be included in the articles for any of the associated companies, it is up to editor consensus for each article to determine whether or not such inclusion is appropriate. The ongoing debate on this subject relating to the Cracker Barrel article demonstrates that no clear editor consensus exists. Given Cracker Barrel's long, repeated history of being on "the wrong side of the law," this indictment is more important as it relates to Cracker Barrel than other companies. Thus, we should err on the side of inclusion. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Try adding this stuff to the other seven articles if you truly believe it proper. Until then, it is of grossly undue weight here. I would love to hear the results on those other seven articles, for sure. Collect (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this article here, not the other seven. We need to decide whether it is appropriate to include this material in this article. The information clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in an article. It is especially appropriate for the Cracker Barrel article, given CB's long history of legal problems.

And CB was mentioned as one of eight - yet you wish this to be the main focus? Nope - when there are eight companies and CB is not the biggest of them, it is UNDUE to stress this single company. Tell me when you get the same section into Sears and the others. Collect (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, for the reasons I stated above. There is no obligation in Wikipedia that all any news related to multiple companies be mentioned in the Wikipedia articles for all companies mentioned. Please stop following this path. It is not valid. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an obligation not to place undue weight on any topic - in the case at ahand, the NYT source listed eight companies, and did not single out CB. Thus using the cite to single out CB is a violation of Wikipedia policy. We must give the cite only as much weight as the cite itself claims, to be sure, and since the cite did not treat CB as the primary culprit, neither should this article do so. Collect (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was in an edit conflict and deleted my revert. I believe that if it is not appropriate to include the charge it follows that it is not correct to include the redress. At any rate, please direct me to the policy guidelines regarding what may or may not be included. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your assessment of Wikipedia policy. If all eight companies are given significant RS coverage on a certain issue, any or all of the related eight articles may or may not contain information related to that coverage, depending on editor consensus for each individual article. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not mistaken -- if an article makes a claim en passant regarding eight companies, some of which are vastly bigger than the one at issue, it is UNDUE to make the source appear only to deal with the single company - it is misleading to the readers, and misrepresents the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that New York Times source isn't giving them significant coverage. There is a grand total of three sentences in the entire two page article about the 8 companies, all of which is just listing them. Silverseren^C 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW en passant mention. Collect (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. The New York Times sources says nothing specific to the Cracker Barrel, other than naming them along with seven other companies: "The grand jury also indicted eight companies, accusing them of making illegal contributions to the committee, ranging from $25,000 to $100,000." The article is really about the corruption allegations relating to Tom Delay. Besides, there is no follow up as to whether they were convicted or not, nor whether Cracker Barrel was accused of $25,000 or $100,000, or what. Also, you need at least two reliable sources for anything controversial. Not just an off hand mention in the New York Times. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the illegal contributions coverage may be undue weight especially since the charges were eventually dropped. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

While I think that Ebikeguy makes some good points, I agree with Mathew and Dr. K. that the illegal contributions charge should not be in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, consensus is that the illegal campaign contribution should not be included. While I still disagree vehemently with Collect's interpretation of the rules on the matter, I will bow to consensus at this point and drop my request that this material be added. Pax, Ebikeguy (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ebikeguy, like (I guess) the rest of us, very little of my time is spent in doing an actual edit - most of my time is spent reading the talk page, editing on the talk page, reading references, doing searches for information, and so on. Considering that I don't have an endless amount of Wikipedia time, that means that sometimes I must make a decision that I am not completely comfortable with. In this case, it seems to me that while the charges may have been factual, they didn't stick. I happen to believe that they were factual, but on the other hand I have very strong feelings about the damage that is done to a person (or in this case a corporation) when the media picks up a charge of, for instance, rape, which even though not based on fact and found to be unsubstantuated, will forever damage a person's reputation. In this case, since the charge did not result in a finding of guilt, it seems reasonable to me to not bring it into the article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the racial civil rights abuses, an editor has suggested that my edit may not be appropriate because it is "predicated on a single source for quotes". A quick google search found the charges that the Justice Department confirmed at several other sites including ABC News, USA TODAY, The Augusta Chronicle, and other sites. So it would seem that we are left with a single disagreement - the amount of copy that may be included in the article without undue weight. It has been suggested that we must reach a "compromise", however I agree with the editors that believe the confirmed charges are such an egregious violation of civil rights that they should, in fact, have even more space in the article. That's pretty much my compromise - that the article contains as little information as my edit included.

Really, one has to wonder how different our encyclopedia might be written if African Americans were as well-represented here as youngish white males. Furthermore, we are not speaking of something going on twenty years ago, this is very current information which, I believe, should add to the weight with which these civil rights issues should be addressed. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WRT WEIGHT of the details of the civil rights complaint - I suggest that such complaints are always on the verbose side, and that a proper cite to the source where the extra stuff is found is quite sufficient. Wikipedia is not the place for verbose quoting of complaints as stated in court documents, and this article is not an exception to that practice. Lastly, the "race card" which you implicitly play here is of no value on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully expected a "race card" comment and included those remarks anyway. And yes, they may be inappropriate and of no value here. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Need for GAR

I'm coming here from the GAR page. Good article reassessment doesn't deal with content dispute, which this appears to be. Just like GAN we need a stable version of an article to be able to provide an assessment. I would suggest putting the reassessment on hold for a week or two to see if you can sort out a stable version here. If editors still don't think this meets the good article criteria we can discuss that version at GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (ec) :I agree with this. The article needs to be stable and if there are ongoing conflicts about specific controversial content, it isn't stable.

I suggest that editors look at other GA articles on restaurant corporations for comparison as to what to cover, e.g. Park Grill, which contains a description of legal issues woven into the article and Burger King (which has an independent article under "Controversies and legal cases" to examine Burger King legal issues). Perhaps such an article can be written about Cracker Barrel if the racial description issue demands an in depth exploration. (And as I recall, the sexual harassment charges drew more publicity at the time.) Other articles on other corporations exist to cover controversial content, such as Criticism of Walmart. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The racial discrimination was blatant, and displayed a clear pattern; this was by no means an isolated incident, and should not be brushed off with a quick sentence. As a southern white man myself, I recognize the pattern as more than slightly characteristic; and fish rot from the head. If this were a terse, fluffless article, the exclusion argument would make more sense; but as there is so much fluff in here, we need some downhome truth as well. SilverSeren and Collect are both good editors, but seem to be too willing to listen to the blandishments of the paid agent of Cracker Barrel who has been re-shaping this article to the form preferred by their employer. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That because the two of us (or I assume Collect has), Qwyrxian, Mark at the peer review, and Mathew for the GA review all read over the article and considered it to be neutral. It covers the controversy issues in the reliable sources, there is no reason for such things to dominate the article. What you term to be "fluff" is information that is supposed to be contained in an article about a restaurant. For example, menu information, dining venues, community involvement, and other things. See other GAs, like Park Grill or Argo Tea or Ben's Chili Bowl (this one could do with an update). Silverseren^C 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And should I note that, other than removing the illegal contributions section upon agreement at the peer review, WWB has not touched the controversy section. He has also excused himself from this discussion, because he knows he has a COI in terms of negative information about Cracker Barrel. So please go cast your aspersions on people elsewhere. Silverseren^C 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

?? Seren, I said very explictly that you are both good editors; I then stated my concern that you are too easily persuaded by the arguments of another editor, one with a confessed COI purpose here. Nowhere were any aspersions cast upon the honor or competency of either of you! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to your aspersions against WWB, who has always been forthright about his editing and done his best to edit neutrally and has done an admirable job in that regard. Your aspersions that he is trying to POV-slant the article is what I was referring to. You have no right to say anything bad about him when he has done his absolute best to be accommodating to any issues raised with him, including not editing sections that would be difficult for him to maintain NPOV on (the controversy sections) and also staying out of discussions regarding these sections. He has always sought outside opinions regarding his draft articles, making sure that his editing was fitting perfectly within policy. Silverseren^C 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth?? All Orange said was that he is a paid agent of Cracker Barrel who has been re-shaping this article to the form preferred by his employer. Of course that's what he is attempting to do and I don't see how anybody can dispute that - it's what he's being paid for. To praise him because he has "made sure that his editing was fitting perfectly within policy" and " he has done his absolute best to be accommodating to any issues raised with him" is not an illustration of how forthright and admirable he may be - it's exactly what we all must do if we want our editing to win the approval of other editors. For you to say "You have no right to say anything bad about him" when all he's saying is what I consider to be the obvious leaves me to wonder exactly why you are so adamantly opposed to these edits regarding such blatant racial discrimination. Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't know, "blandishments" is a negative term to apply to someone. And maybe I should rephrase what I said to something simpler, "WWB is a better editor and a far greater benefit to Wikipedia than a majority of the editors on Wikipedia". He is extremely NPOV in his edits and, if someone points out that something doesn't sound exactly NPOV or is unnecessary, as Collect did in the peer review, he corrects it. I would prefer an editor like WWB over the ton of fanboys on Wikipedia or the current swath of people coming in to put negative information into RIAA and MPAA biographies because of the SOPA thing. Being "paid" doesn't mean anything in regards to his editing. If he shows, which he has, that he can edit properly and follow the rules required of every editor, then him being paid for things is utterly irrelevant.

And, as suggested above, if you feel that there is a significant more amount of coverage that should be on the racial discrimination (I notice you haven't said anything about the sexual orientation discrimination), then feel free to split off a criticism article. But any more in this article would be lending undue weight to controversy and criticisms, which is not the focus of this article. Silverseren^C 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you have become upset with Orange, telling him he has no right to say anything "bad" about the paid editor since in your opinion he is doing such an admirable job, and yet have no problem saying that I may be too dumb to understand what the word "blandishments" means.

As for your suggestion that I have asked for such a great amount of coverage to the racial discrimination issue to the point that perhaps I should consider starting a new article, where did I propose that? My edit consisted of the addition of only one or two sentences and a few other small changes. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You would have to add coverage of the sexual discrimination also, and not ignore it. [3][4][5][6][7] and of homosexuality and sexual orientation.[8][9] That is why a new article can be considered. This article shouldn't select only one of the discrimination issues to focus on in detail. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I personally think the article was fine when it passed GA. I think introducing POV (in my opinion), directly after it passed GA, without any discussion on the talk page, was a very bad sign. If the article can settle down, then all will be well. As I suggested above, this article should be compared with other corporation articles that have reached GA status, especially how those articles handled controversy. I, personally, don't think "Controversy" should take over the main article. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I didn't come here looking for trouble. I have been watching Jimbo's talk page since I helped with the SOPA controversy and saw mention of paid editors, which led me to this article. When I read the racial discrimination section of this article it read like this, the version that you say you believe to be fine:

In July 1999, a discrimination lawsuit was filed against Cracker Barrel by a group of former employees, who claimed that the company had discriminated against them on the grounds of race.[61][62] Two years later, in December 2001, the same attorneys filed a separate lawsuit representing 21 customers of the restaurant, alleging racial discrimination in its treatment of guests.[63][64][65] Regarding both the 1999 and 2001 accusations, Cracker Barrel officials disputed the claims and stated that the company was committed to fair treatment of its employees and customers.[64][66][62] In 2004, Cracker Barrel signed a five year agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to introduce "effective nondiscrimination policies and procedures" including: new equal opportunity training; creating a new system to log, investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination; and publicizing its non-discrimination policies.[67] It also paid a $2 million settlement to end a suit alleging race and sexual harassment at three Illinois restaurants, in 2006.[68][69] Following the suits, Cracker Barrel stores began displaying a sign in their front foyer explaining its non-discrimination policy,[70] and also added the policy and details of how to make a complaint to its menu and website.[71]

We may not agree, but to my way of thinking this version in no way represents the gravity and extent of the accusations. When I read the Justice's decision I was really just stunned! When I made that edit I was not at all aware that I was hopping into a hotbed of controversy - it just seemed to me that the entire episode had been whitewashed/minimized to the extent that I felt that as an editor it was important to correct what to me appeared to be an extremely biased presentation of the facts.

This is not the place to get into an extended discussion regarding the use of professional editors, but I would like to point out that it's important to remember that they have been trained to manipulate our thoughts and emotions, and not only by the words they use, though they may excel at that. I think that it's important to keep in mind that while they may be truthful in their edits, don't expect them to present the whole truth. The paid editor may well be a fine person who fully believes that his presentation here is the whole truth, but I believe that it's my place to look at all paid editors in the same way that I would look at a paid lobbyist: With suspect.

Look also, for instance, at the sources that were used for this section. If I got my numbers correct, the first paragraph lists six references and all but one of them is a paid subscription source. Why? I easily found several sources including this ABC site [10] Instead the editor chose the news coverage with the least copy and smallest amount of information. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read through everything here, but a couple things just came to mind: a. I think we should probably stop the whole paid-editor bashing here. Specific issues about bias on this page are relevant, but this really isn't the correct venue for general discussion of paid editing. b. It looks like LexisNexis and Highbeam (both subscription services) were used in the research and that's why there are so many subscription-only links. It makes a lot of sense to use those services and you can always get subscription pieces for free at WP:RX, so I don't see why that is an issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WWB neither created the controversy section (it was already there when he started), nor did he edit it. So your entire comment falls completely flat, since it was other users who put that section together. Silverseren^C 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had a conversation on Silver's talk page (#28) re this suggestion for an inclusion, so for now I will just post it without comment:

The Justice Department said its investigations found evidence of Cracker Barrel's staff segregating customer seating by race; seating or serving white customers before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers; providing inferior service to African-American customers and allowing white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers.[11] [12] Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• You would have to add similar detailed coverage of their sexual harassment (evidence and settlements) also, and not ignore it, as at the time it was a big deal. e.g. [13][14][15][16][17] and of their discrimination (evidence and settlements) against homosexuality and sexual orientation.[18][19] This article shouldn't select only one of the discrimination issues to focus on in detail. That is why a new article focusing on Cracker Barrel's controversies and legal issues can be considered, along the lines of Burger King legal issues or Criticism of Walmart to avoid the issue of undue weight. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with Mathew though. We should also expand the sexual harassment info by three or four sentences. Silverseren^C 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea. If we remove the "engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against customers and prospective customers on the basis of their race or color" part and incorporate what you just wrote as more specific information, how's this format:

In 2004, an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department found evidence that Cracker Barrel had been segregating customer seating by race; seating or serving white customers before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers; providing inferior service to African-American customers and allowing white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers. This led the Justice Department to find that Cracker Barrel had violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and required them to hire an outside auditor to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement. This included obligating them to sign a five year agreement to introduce "effective nondiscrimination policies and procedures" including: new equal opportunity training; creating a new system to log, investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination; and publicizing its non-discrimination policies.

How's that? Silverseren^C 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Gandydancer (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a big sexual harassment settlement (sexual harassment of female employees) that was a big deal at the time. Why select one and not the other? e.g. Cracker Barrel has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the company of sexual harassment, racial harassment, and retaliation at three restaurants in Illinois. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got an idea. The section above it is about the policy on sexual orientation and that's fine how it is. But how about we change the title for the section we're discussiong to "Alleged racial and sexual discrimination"? Then we can cover both subject in it and we're not favoring one side (racial vs. sexual) over the other. Silverseren^C 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, reading the articles it sounds like the sexual harassment came first and racial discrimination was tacked on to it, so they were combined. The sexual orientation apparently was a preemptive strike by the company. They weren't sued, it seems, but their board decided to disseminate a policy that they won't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Sort of a PR move to promote that Cracker Barrel was a wonderful place to work. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cites

If you use the "Error check" on the ref toolbar a few reference errors come up, I think due to different citations using the same ref name. I can try to fix it later, but I'm tied up a bit at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix this since I don't use the ref toolbar (nor know really what it is). Though I would agree that the error is probably coming from duplicate names, but non-duplicate refs. Silverseren^C 05:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at fixing it, might want to check that I didn't mess anything up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no ref error listed at the bottom of the page, so I assume all is well. Silverseren^C 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

Cracker Barrel has provided training and resources to minority employees What's a "minority employee"? John (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the first instance of minority in the lede to Minority group. But as for the term "minority employee", that's an accurate term. I can't think of a way to reword it without the sentence becoming clunky. Silverseren^C 09:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sequence

I gather from a glance at the FAC that sections were switched around; unfortunately we now have "In further attempts to rebuild its image,[49] the firm has provided a scholarship through the National Black MBA Association,[50] and job skills programs and sponsorships with 100 Black Men of America[49][51] and the Restaurant and Lodging Association.[52]" coming before the reader has read the accounts of the various controversies. This is less than optimal on a FA! --John (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. The reorganization in the middle of FAC was something we didn't think to re-check over to make sure the switched wording was proper. I've now reworded the sentence, so I hope it reads better. Silverseren^C 09:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done

I find the topic not so interesting, but I read about a third of the article and scanned the rest because it is well-written and flows well. I learned things about the store that I did not know, and not just about the controversy, but about the store's roots, and the gas pumps. I thought I remembered they had gas pumps in the South, but someone said "no, they've never had them." I bet the newer stores in the West never had the pumps. And so, it was worth my time. One should be able to find well-written articles about any topic in an encyclopedia, good job. --150.135.210.72 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing dispute

Two issues I'd like to raise about the new Licensed products section:

1. It currently says the deal was to create a line of frozen food products, although the deal was not about a frozen foods, but rather bacon, ham, and lunchmeats. The Reuters article linked a few days ago has apparently gone 404, but the Chicago Tribune still carries a Reuters story with the same headline, and there's no mention of "frozen" foods here. Meanwhile, an AP report carried by Huffington Post says "packaged ham, bacon and other foods". Can someone update this?
2. Second, there are couple of problems with this statement: Kraft says that Cracker Barrel products for sale in retail have been exclusively manufactured or has been licensed by Kraft and not from the restaurant chain since 1954. As the AP story linked above notes, the restaurant chain has sold a "limited number of mixes, candies and sauces through its shops and website", which is certainly retail. The article also notes it was specifically cheese Kraft began selling under the name in 1954 (other products came later). Any thoughts about how to handle these differing versions?

Lastly, as veterans of this article will correctly presume, I am asking on Cracker Barrel's behalf. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the issue if I can help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel is not a retail outlet, it is a restaurant that sells products on the side in its own setting. Retail outlets are supermarkets and similar locations. The article I read said frozen meals. If that is incorrect, feel free to fix it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, thanks for the fast reply. About retail: although I think it's fair to say that Cracker Barrel Old Country store operates in both restaurant and retail, I follow your point about availability in supermarkets, and I can let it go—it's actually not the main point I should have made.

The real issue is that the Reuters story is unclear on Kraft's products, but the same Associated Press version I linked before is more clear: Kraft notes that it started using the "Cracker Barrel" name on cheese in 1954. (I made an error yesterday in saying "other products came later"—in fact, Kraft's Cracker Barrel brand is only cheese.) So I would suggest changing this sentence:

Kraft says that Cracker Barrel products for sale in retail have been exclusively manufactured or has been licensed by Kraft and not from the restaurant chain since 1954.

To this:

Kraft has sold cheese under the Cracker Barrel brand in retail stores since 1954.

How does that sound? (Sounds good about "frozen"; I avoid direct editing when it's a client issue, so I can ask someone at WP:PAIDHELP if you'd prefer.) Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It works for me. If you can find a source, this is an issue under the Lanham Act and concerns the legal concept of prior use. Take a look see at Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) to see what I am referring too. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's great. About the Lanham Act: I searched recent coverage for the keywords involving the company names and Lanham Act, and it doesn't seem to have figured in any secondary sources, so, perhaps better to wait and see if that does become part of the coverage. Meantime, since you've encouraged me to make the edits but I'd prefer to keep to Talk pages (especially given the scrutiny this article has had) I'll ask at WP:CO-OP and try another recently involved editor as well. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made both of the requested changes. Does it look okay? Silverseren^C 23:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the assist! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

food

this book needs to have pictures of food because it talks about a food place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.73.166 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Biglari coverage

This article seems to be missing a substantial chunk of comprehensive coverage. Cracker Barrel's largest shareholder, Biglari holdings, has been regularly at odds with the board. They have even gone so far as to add a poison pill to keep Biglari from buying a larger stake in the company. This issue was present prior to the Featured Article candidacy, and coverage continues today. A few references:

• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304866904579266014159531446
• http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/cracker-barrel-adopts-poison-pill/?_r=0
• http://www.cnbc.com/id/48860434

and plenty more can be found on Google.

Currently there is only one, recently added, sentence mentioning Biglari, noting that he is an "activist shareholder" whose proposal was shot down. I am inclined to think this is a serious oversight for a featured article. Any thoughts on putting this up for featured article review? --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE - the coverage in the article is proportionate to the coverage in sources. Collect (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That is to say, discussing it at all would be undue weight? The coverage has been pretty extensive for multiple years. Here is stuff from the past few days:

• http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/20/biglari-takes-another-crack-at-cracker-barrel.aspx#.UreP8X2JC6c
• http://nashvillepost.com/news/2013/12/18/biglaris_latest_idea_just_flat_sell_cracker_barrel
• http://www.tennessean.com/article/20131219/BUSINESS01/312190050/Biglari-hints-selling-his-20-percent-Cracker-Barrel?nclick_check=1

A quick search of World News finds 320 results for Biglari and Cracker Barrel. I think it is safe to say this is more than a sentence-worth of mention. It could easily be a subsection on investment history. This was the most obvious of multiple issues I see in this article. Much of the text is written as a PR document--multiple mentions of the charity work, titles like "investment and future growth" which could be taken from a prospectus, passive voice in some points of criticism followed by active voice in addressing it. I am really not sure how these issues could have slipped pasted Featured Article Candidacy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well of course. I've know about the Biglari stuff, and Cracker Barrel's generally parlous financials for ages. Of course it's important. There's other interesting and useful stuff not in the article too, such as Cracker Barrel making illegal payments to Dick Armey, part of the scandal that ended Armey's career, and so forth.

I think that when a user goes to an article, she wants to answer the question "What is this entity?" and stuff that describes who they are as a player on this earth, including the Biglari matter and much else is obviously as important as "Cracker Barrel is known for the loyalty of its customers" and "There are two menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner" so on. But good luck with that. I guess it comes down to the question of "What should an article about a corporation contain"? and that's something people can disagree on, and there're enough editors of the mind "Not anything the corporation doesn't want you to know" that it's a tough row to hoe.

As a practical matter, Cracker Barrel itself more or less wrote this article and continues to control it (User:WWB Too is their PR rep). It's all on the up and up -- User:WWB Too is open about his relationship with Cracker Barrel and follows Bright Line by only posting suggestions to the talk page -- but then you have other users who, for whatever reason (ideology I suppose) are only too willing to paste these into the article and defend them. Here's a discussion re this situation from a couple years ago (there are others).

What I'd suggest is that, since you have the refs and all, you add a section describing this important matter. Of course it's relevant to answering the question "Who are they"? But don't expect to get anywhere, or for you contributions not to be massaged away if you do. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started work on the article, but a good deal more is needed. Do you think a featured article review is needed? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't really know how Featured Articles works. I gather that there's a checklist. I think that the items on the checklist are like "error-free prose" and "long enough" and "has nice pictures" and "references are formatted correctly" and so forth. WP:NPOV is only one item on that list and I don't think it's weighted anymore than if the references are formatted correctly or whatever, besides which I assume that they're looking for obvious POV such as blatant puffery or denigration. They're not equipped to deal with material being left out I don't think and objections of that manner are likely to be brushed off I think. Herostratus (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, all. Just noticed that Hero had mentioned me in this discussion, so I figured I should weigh in. However, all I really have to say is that I'm not too familiar with Biglari, and I haven't worked with Cracker Barrel since I obtained a few corrections in February of this year. Happy to answer any questions if I can, though. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

I know what a cracker is (e.g. a soda cracker), and I know what a barrel is, but I've never seen a barrel filled with crackers, and never heard of a "cracker barrel" outside of being a brand of cheese. The article says the name was chosen to reflect a "southern theme", implying that "cracker barrel" was a pre-existing name, but it doesn't what on earth it refers to. Do southerners keep crackers in a barrel? It makes no sense.77Mike77 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In olden times (pre-1900), crackers were not sold in boxes in neat cardboard with colorful characters on them.. They were sold to stores in big barrels (as were pickles etc.). Frequently the barrel was used as a table in the store, and people would gather "around the cracker barrel". Collect (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That info should be included in the article.77Mike77 (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

re Category:Discrimination against LGBT people

Yes it makes sense to have the article in this category. For one thing, it's not just drive-by categorization. There's a section on it in the article. They're more or less well-known for it, which probably makes sense, because how many organizations in 21st century America have on file employee termination forms with "Employee is gay" given as the entire entry in the "Reason for termination" field?

This is unsurprising, since they're a southern organization (they don't much like women or African-Americans either). I get that, for whatever reason, they don't want to let their Confederate freak flag fly as Chick-Fil-A does, so they hired folks to have this article written for them and kind of downplay this. So we have "Cracker Barrel achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of gay and lesbian workplace equality. Their score for 2011 had improved to a 55. The 2011 survey noted that the firm had established a non-discrimination policy and had introduced diversity training that included training related to sexual orientation, which allows an editor to then say "This company doesn't seem to fit into that category anymore, as the discrimination isn't current".

Unfortunately, facts are stubborn things. Their 2012 Corporate Equality Index dropped to 35, and stayed there for 2013.[20] This is far below median, and is out of a possible score of 100, which hundreds of organizations do achieve. It's really not that hard to achieve a high score, unless you have difficulty with concepts like "don't be an asshole". Anyway, for whatever reason, they don't seem able to sustain that towering 55. I can't think of any reason why this isn't mentioned in the article.

Can anyone help me here?

Think hard!

At any rate, for my part I think that that discriminating against LGBT folks is a important part of who they are and it's a service to the reader to group them in that category for ease of access. So I put it back. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I didn't realize that their score had gone down again. If it is indeed a current issue, then the category deserves to be here. Though only so long as it is current, because if you look in the category, you'd see that only organizations where it is current for them or that the stance lasted throughout their entire existence are included in the category. Organizations that eventually changed their stances aren't included in the category. So, for now, it's appropriate to have the category here. Silverseren^C 20:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added the 2013 scores to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Silverseren^C 20:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is now late in 2015 - and no actual sourcing for the category about Cracker Barrel as an organization has been presented. Collect (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

re Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights

(See also above: Talk:Cracker Barrel#re Category:Discrimination against LGBT people

There's no question that they have engaged in egregious discrimination against LGBT people. This is not surprising since they're a Southern (USA) organization with a Southern mindset.

To my mind, the questions are:

1. Is this mostly in the past?
2. If it is mostly in the past, does that matter? There's no Category:Organizations that formerly opposed LGBT rights. It might matter. Organizations change. I would be reluctant to put Republican Party (United States) in Category:Organizations championing African-American rights even tho for most of their history they were. Another might think it's recentism not to. It's probably a case-by-case thing that partly depends on how far in the past you want to go...
3. Even if they qualify per #1 and #2, they are not an organization that exists primarily to make LGBT people unhappy. Their main mission is to sell 5000-calorie heaps of biscuits and gravy and so forth. The other thing is just a side effect of them being who they are.

As to #3, fine, but would we not put ExxonMobile in Category:organizations opposed to climate change science (or whatever) even though their actual activity is just to pump, refine, and sell oil and the other thing is just a side effect. And after all, Cracker Barrel is notorious for being intolerant generally.

The whole discussion makes me nervous because Cracker Barrel has spread some money around here, and there has been at least one libertarian-type person involved in this article, and both of those would make it difficult to have a fair discussion, so IDK... as far as refs, User:Collect had reverted the category because of lack of refs. Well there's hella refs, see the "Controversies" section for starters. The question is not refs but the three questions posed above, about which I personally can seen both sides.

Since Cracker Barrel has seen fit to try to corrupt the Wikipedia to its own ends, I'm not inclined to cut them any breaks tho. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Categorization requires sourcing. In the case at hand, you would need strong sourcing for Cracker Barrel as an organization seeking to discriminate against LGBT people. That you assert Cracker Barrel has seen fit to try to corrupt Wikipedia to its own ends is not a WP:RE source, I fear you might be trying to make Wikipedia rules fit your own desires here. c (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well there's hella sourcing, as I said. As I said, the "Controversies" section has some (not saying that that's exhaustive). There are two sources for "In early 1991, an intra-company memo called for employees to be dismissed if they did not display "normal heterosexual values". According to news reports, at least 11 employees were fired under the policy on a store-by-store basis from locations in Georgia and other states". There's a source for "Cracker Barrel achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of LGBT workplace equality". There's also some stuff about how they've seen the light, but remember that's paid content; the previous section describes how as soon as no one was looking they went back to their old ways and so forth.

That's OK (I suppose). That's who they are. No need to hide it. They serve chicken livers (yum!) and sell interesting retro toys and so forth, so like most entities that have good and bad aspects. Our job is to just to present the facts. Is it a service to the reader to allow her to navigate to to this article via that category? I don't know. Maybe.

"Cracker Barrel has seen fit to try to corrupt Wikipedia to its own ends" is not a source but it is a fact. Ignoring facts is not a good way to start discussion stuff IMO. As I said, their decision to try to corrupt the Wikipedia makes this a fraught conversation. Whether I think that people who defend Cracker Barrel's virtue might or might not be corrupt is for my own mind to keep to itself, but if they didn't want that question being raised in people's minds, and if they didn't want us to be take especial care to combat that by making sure that negative aspects of their organization are properly expounded on, maybe they should have thought of that before starting to throw money around here, n'est-ce pas?

So, you know, if you want to demonstrate that they were never an ant-LGBT organization, or that they aren't anymore and that matters, or that they are or were but it doesn't matter for categorization purposes, the burden's on you to make your case I would say. Don't go on about sources, though, as there are sources aplenty, and if that's your entire argument you've already lost, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What you have is a single memo from a quarter century ago - on which you wish to categorize the corporation as belonging in a category. That is absurd. And as for you stating as a "fact" that Cracker Barrel is a pernicious and evil company somehow buying off Wikipedia editors - that is improper - we have no sources in any way suggesting that this was an official corporate policy in 1991, and surely nothing related to 2015. Collect (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure, whatever. I'm not going to fight you (even though you're probably dead wrong) because... meh. Cracker Barrel has made the decision to be one thing and pretend to be another, and that's their story and they're sticken to it and they'll spread around as much dough as it takes, I guess.

Hmmm, here's a quote from a Salon article today titled Southern whites will not surrender: They believe their own Hobby Lobby, Cracker Barrel psychopathology: I speak here of the Tea Party and the NRA. I speak of Hobby Lobby and Cracker Barrel. And at the extreme I speak of the White Aryan Resistance and the Creativity Movement. So, you know, it's not just me saying that these people are reprehensible bigots and that's a key part of who they are (and maybe they ought to be categorized by key components of who they are). Maybe Salon is dead wrong but it's a popular paper; it's not just some guy's blog or whatever. It's an entity that you might wish no one read, but that's different from being an entity that no one actually reads. It's not something you can handwave away IMO. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cracker Barrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110820183829/http://www.crackerbarrel.com:80/local/ to http://www.crackerbarrel.com/local/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150514104430/http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2482&dat=20050618&id=q2ZJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rwoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3560,1116053 to https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2482&dat=20050618&id=q2ZJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rwoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3560,1116053

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Origin of name

Where does the name come from? What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.93.21 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting Read

I too found the topic rather boring at first, but was unaware of all the controversy surrounding the restaurant chain. The article was well written and it completes its goal of informing readers information that they did not know before they read it. Growing up eating at Cracker Barrels I had no idea that there was so much controversy about their policies and found it shocking. When I first began to read the section of the article that discussed the controversy I thought it was going to be biased against Cracker Barrel. To my surprise, it wasn't. I thinkn this is a good example of an article that is unbiased even though it talks about negative attention it has received. Overall, a great article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgav09 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism.

People keep adding stuff about "Brad's wife" to the article, even after semi-protection. Might need to be watched for the next week or two. 2600:8800:2404:5C00:1041:D75F:77D0:B69F (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is an online meme, I'm wondering if there should be a brief sub-section in the Controversies section, something about labor practices using it as an example – not that we know the circumstances of the termination, but that it was controversial regardless. It's not the first time that a termination at Cracker Barrel has become a widely-discussed phenomenon. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't mention every passing meme in the main article. Let's at least wait and see if there's substantial coverage that continues in reliable secondary sources. Jonathunder (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

--(t) Josve05a (c) 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not a single one of which makes even a remote assertion that the "wife" is of any substantial value to this article at all. Collect (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - no need to cover every trivial meme. Kuru (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. What with the WaPo and all, maybe it belongs in List of complete nonsense or whatever we have for stuff like this, but not here. Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be a "silly meme" but it has received massive national media attention from outlets like the Washington Post [[21]]. Calling it a "silly meme" and not including anything about it, for example under "controversies", at this point is clearly inserting biased personal opinions into the article (bias can represent itself as lies of omission). Even the CIA has a task force on "meme warfare" and memology is a major recognized active area of study that has profound influence on the world. It is most certainly and unarguably of great significance to this article, vandalism notwithstanding. Even if it is a passing meme, you can be certain it will be studied at length by people who are interested in social media, corporate presence, and memeology. 144.92.166.201 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, we do have List of memes. It would be there it should go since it better answers the question "What are some memes?" than the question "What is Cracker Barrel like?". The thing is, every entry in List of memes has its own article, so you'd want to do that first. Could we have an article on this? Speaking as the author of Vodka eyeballing and Planking (fad) and Beezin', my answer is: Yes. Yes, we could. So go to it, colleague! Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, Beezin'. Note that Burt's Bees was popularly sold in Cracker Barrel. This may all be a delicately crafted web of nonsense. Kuru (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

I notice that Cracker Barrel only currently employed 69,999 people (minus Brad's Wife) WeWantJusticeForBradsWife (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@WeWantJusticeForBradsWife: Not done. TJH2018talk 03:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Cracker Barrel → Cracker Barrel Old Country Store – Company's official name; want to distinguish from Cracker Barrel cheese or actual cracker barrels Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Contesting. I firmly believe that "Cracker Barrel" is the common name for this restaurant chain, which per WP:COMMONNAME should be used over the official name. SkyWarrior 01:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Mvcg66b3r and SkyWarrior: Queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: The proposed name seems overly lengthy and unlikely to be commonly used (and potentially misleading, since these are not really country stores). Note also that the extra words are deemphasized on the logo shown in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:COMMONNAME is policy, and this seems to be the primary use of the phrase. WP:HN may be appropriate for other uses, but I couldn't find articles for either of the others (Cracker Barrel (cheese) redirects to List of Kraft brands). Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Meatsgains (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME and all above.  ONR  (talk)  14:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (obviously) per WP:COMMONNAME. I think WP:SNOW may need to be considered as well. SkyWarrior 14:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Well, there really isn't another major use of "cracker barrel" here. There is the actual concept of a "cracker barrel", which is the original and probably most encyclopedic meaning, and what many people are actually looking for. But we don't have that. We have Barrel, but that's kind of broad. It has an extensive "Use today" section, but not a "Past use" section, where we could discuss pickle barrels and other types of food barrels too, which is a notable thing in the history of food transportation, storage, and marketing, I think. But we don't have it yet. The other uses of "cracker barrel" are fairly trivial. The cheese is a minor thing and just redirects to a list. There are or were a couple of car races with "Cracker Barrel" in their name. There is a term, "cracker barrel" which means cornpone, unsophisticated. But its not in Wiktionary, yet. It's possible that we should have a dab page, one pointing to the restaurant and one pointing to Barrel, and also the races, and with the Wiktionary link when that page is made. Maybe. But if we don't have a dab page, we shouldn't move this one. Who cares what the legal name is? Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cracker Barrel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224095255/http://news.yahoo.com/cracker-barrel-names-mccarten-board-member-145620976.html to https://news.yahoo.com/cracker-barrel-names-mccarten-board-member-145620976.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cracker Barrel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913155616/http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/management.cfm to http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/management.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091240/http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=602026 to http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=602026
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408002229/http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=604826 to http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=604826
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224102453/http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1140361-12-49021 to http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1140361-12-49021
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402093827/http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/common/mobile/iphone/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=621654&CompanyID=CBRL&mobileid= to http://investor.crackerbarrel.com/common/mobile/iphone/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=621654&CompanyID=CBRL&mobileid=

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Your section map about Cracker Barrel restaurants has omitted the one nearest to me: Washington, PA 1008 Trinity Circle Washington, PA 15301-2972 724-222-7050 207.255.126.78 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a location map? Kuru (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - We don't have maps showing the locations of retail outlets in any of our articles, so you must be seeing this on another platform e.g. Google, Bing, etc. which are outside of our control. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

NASCAR Sponsorship

Cracker Barrel's sponsorship turned into a fiasco and eventually a lawsuit. I believe it merits a mention and I'm seeking opinions of others as to where this information should be mentioned. Is the preference under the existing controversies section or should it be mentioned after the NASCAR information already in the article? Modor (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Modor

• Are you referring to the lawsuit brought by Cracker Barrel regarding Fox's coverage of the 2001 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store 500? It seems trivial in the overall history of Cracker Barrel. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth a mention in that article, but probably not here. Jonathunder (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it could be mentioned in 2001 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store 500, particularly as it ended the sponsorship. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding section on Cracker Barrel logo controversy

Recently there's been a controversy brewing after someone noticed that the loop on the far right of Cracker Barrel's logo resembles a whip. Many have responded by boycotting the store and regretting their purchases. Is this worthy of inclusion under the Controversies section yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.18.97 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Consider FARC

Per Wikipedia:Featured article review, edits need to be considered since this is at FA status that seems too be falling short.

1) The lead has become unruly and is overly focused on controversy. The issues can be discussed in the prose and I wonder why we even have that many sources in the lead. The version had 1 of 3 paragraphs devoted to controversy, but it has gotten out of hand with controversy dominating the lead

2) There seems to be a lot of reverts in the last couple months. Looking further in to the history this seems to be a minor lightning rod of an article which has made it inherently unstable.

3) MOS:Images is not met

3a. Why is the gift shop image underCracker Barrel#Restaurants left justified and sandwiching with "A Cracker Barrel guest playing peg solitaire"

3b. 2012 wasn't that long ago, so where is the alt text?

4) Sourcing

4a. Looks OK overall but a lot of primary sourcing

4b. At least one date in inconsistent and publish date with access date is not consistent.

4c. Is Human Rights Campaign or the NAACP reliable sources on this subject?

4d. Why is staff writer even wikilinked in a source?

4e. I verified at least one dead link and there are multiple other flags and timeouts per the external link tool.

5) The weight given to controversy alone makes the article read as a "hit peice". I'm not saying that there is no room for criticism, but:

5a. Even the section titles don't meet the MOS on how to use dashes with Cracker Barrel#Race- and gender-based discrimination lawsuits

5b. And of course WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Criticism; it would be much better to reduce the overall footprint or try to integrate Cracker Barrel#Controversies in to the history section. Note: The FA nom did have a "controversy" section in 2012 and I am actually surprised that got past the reviewers.

6) 1 redlink: Maple Street Biscuit Company

2601:601:CE7F:E270:D6E:C938:448E:2071 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal Introduction and Infoxbox Updates

Hello! My name is Jessica, and I'm an employee of Cracker Barrel. I'm here on behalf of the company to suggest updates to the article. I disclosed my conflict of interest here and on my User page. I understand the community guidelines for COI editors and will only suggest edits and ask for help here on the Cracker Barrel Talk page, and will not directly edit the article myself.

I understand that this article has been thoroughly vetted by the community, but that was back in 2012. Like the recent comment above suggests, this featured article could use some updating. It's my goal to help editors by supplying up-to-date information and compliant sources.

To start, is it possible to update some stats in the infobox using the most recent annual report?

• Number of locations = 663
• Revenue = US$2.52 billion
• Operating income = US$103.43 million
• Net income (loss) = US($32.47) million
• Total assets = US$2.54 billion
• Number of employees = 55,000

Please reach out to me here or on my Talk page with any questions. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Altamel (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thanks so much for taking care of those updates. I've posted another request below. If you have time to review, please feel free to. Thanks again, CB JessicaM (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

West Coast expansion

Is it possible to add mention of our expansion to the West Coast? I believe that counts as a milestone which is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and would bolster recent company history. I've proposed text and provided sourcing below. Let me know if I can answer any questions, and I understand that editors may choose to change the language. I think this content would fit under History in either New markets and refocus or Operations

• "In April 2017 Cracker Barrel opened its first location on the West Coast of the United States in Tualatin, Oregon as part of the company's effort to expand into more metropolitan areas. The company marked the opening of its 645th store by bringing out Ray and Wilma Yoder, a couple who had previously visited the other 644 locations, and presented them with custom Cracker Barrel aprons.

References

Thanks for reviewing. Please reach out with any comments or questions. CB JessicaM (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to note here that I've added the edit request template to my initial post. I also have a small addendum to the above request below.

• If editors add the content above about Cracker Barrel's West Coast expansion, would it also make sense to mention that Cracker Barrel continued its West Coast expansion and opened its first California location in February 2018, located in Victorville? This article from the Victorville Daily Press confirms that it was the first California location.

Feel free to reach out with comments or questions. Thanks, CB JessicaM (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: I have implemented some of the changes. The Yoders do not seem appropriate for a section about new markets, which is where I placed the request. Also the bit about metros seems obvious from context. Let me know what you think. Urve (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Urve: Thanks so much for taking a look and adding that information about our expansion to the West Coast. I've posted some additional suggestions below about other recent changes to Cracker Barrel's operations. If you have time to review that would be great. One other quick question, you mentioned that the information about the Yoders didn't seem appropriate for the New markets section. Do you think that would be appropriate elsewhere in the article, such as somewhere in Restaurants? Thanks again, CB JessicaM (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional changes to New markets and Operations

Hello, I have suggested some more updates to changes to Cracker Barrel's operations and focus on new markets below. I think these will be useful to the page to further fill in recent company history.

• Add mention of when Cracker Barrel began offering Heat n’ Serve holiday meals in 2016, per this Today article, and continuing emphasis on off-premise sales in 2018, per this article in Nation's Restaurant News.
• Add mention of Cracker Barrel's first major delivery partnership with DoorDash in 2020, per this Fox Business article.

@Altamel: Thanks so much for the detailed feedback. My goal here is to identify content gaps and info that can be updated, and I understand that not everything will be relevant to the article or preferred by editors. Your suggestions are great for guiding future requests. I'll consider your thoughts on how off-premise sales could be incorporated. For now, I have posted a request to update the Corporate Equality Index content in the LGBT Policies section. I've tried to match the existing tone, as you mentioned, and build on what's there, rather than provide only scores without context. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Again, thank you for taking the time to give such thorough feedback and advice. CB JessicaM (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Update to Corporate Equality Index info in LGBT policies

Hello, I'd like to request an update to the paragraph on Cracker Barrel's Corporate Equality Index score, in the LGBT policies section. The most recent data provided is from 2013, so I believe this update will give readers a more accurate account of Cracker Barrel's progress in this area. I've cited the Human Rights Campaign's reports since they're already used in the article, but the 2019 and 2020 scores can also be supported with this article from The Tennessean as well as this Knox News piece. I am open to questions, or changes editors think are appropriate.

• Cracker Barrel earned 80 points in the 2019 report. Since 2013, the company gained points for establishing policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and best practices for LGBTQ training, outreach efforts to the LGBTQ community, and for having supplier non-discrimination standards. The company maintained its score of 80 in the 2020 and 2021 reports.

References

Thank you for looking. If you have any comments or suggestions, reach out here or on my Talk page. CB JessicaM (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please reach out with any comments or questions. Thanks, CB JessicaM (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, CB JessicaM, for your suggestions. I must say, however, that I am not onboard with these requests. My issue is that you have not shown how these requests can be integrated into the article in a way that (1) fits within the existing narrative structure and (2) avoids becoming a disorganized list of events. What I want to avoid are paragraphs like the ones at Applebee's, where editors have added standalone paragraphs, for example "On July 16, 2007, IHOP Corp. announced that it agreed to buy Applebee's International...", without making any attempt to integrate them into the rest of the article. The same issue would arise if I were to just add "In 2020, Cracker Barrel partnered with DoorDash" to the article.

In my opinion, adding the partnership with DoorDash is not warranted at this time. Partnerships arise and dissolve, and it is too soon to tell how significant a role DoorDash will play in Cracker Barrel's corporate history. I do see some potential for mentioning off-premise sales, if the suggestion is reworked. There needs to be more context so that readers can understand the role of off-premise sales for CB. For instance, the following questions come to mind: when did CB begin expanding into catering/off-premise sales? What portion of revenues do off-premise sales account for? Has CB encountered any obstacles in expanding into off-premise sales? Of course, the reworked suggestion should cite reliable sources as appropriate.

As you correctly noted above, this article has been thoroughly vetted by the featured article process. For that reason, it is vital that any text added by edit requests fits in with the existing tone or organization of the article. I hope you will understand my reasons for using meticulous editorial standards to evaluate your requests. Best, Altamel (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the report is already mentioned, I'm good with adding a line like "In 2019, Cracker Barrel earned a score of 80 on the index, and maintained that score in the 2020 and 2021 reports." with the sources you listed and after the line ending "benefits." Thoughts, Altamel and CB JessicaM? --FeldBum (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Your suggested version looks good to me. I don't make direct edits because of my COI. If you're available to implement the update that would be great. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can make that change. Any feedback Altamel? I know you've been close to this. --FeldBum (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No feedback, so added as is. Marking as answered. --FeldBum (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@FeldBum: The addition looks good. I really appreciate you taking the time to make this edit on my behalf. If you're interested in continuing to collaborate, I've posted a new request below. Thank you! CB JessicaM (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey CB JessicaM, let me dig into the request a bit. Feel free to bug me if I take too long. --FeldBum (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Five Decades, One Voice

Hi there! I'm back with another request for help and advice.

Specifically, I am curious if there's a section in the article where it would be appropriate to add a brief mention of our Five Decades, One Voice campaign? The article mentions Cracker Barrel's association with country music at several points. I thought perhaps in New markets and refocus, it might work to add a short entry along the lines of "Cracker Barrel's involvement with the country music industry has also included their 2019 'Five Decades, One Voice' campaign. The company partnered with female country music singers such as Loretta Lynn, Trisha Yearwood, and Brandi Carlile to highlight their work after a study found female country artists receive less radio time than male artists." Here are a few sources that talk about the campaign for editors to review:

• ABC News
• Good Morning America
• Sounds Like Nashville

Any thoughts are welcome. I appreciate the time volunteer editors take reviewing these requests so that conflict of interest editors like myself can remain hands-off. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• @CB JessicaM: first, I want to thank you for the work you are doing on this subject. But this edit would not be an improvement to the article: not because the information is not sourced (it is, and thnak you for providing the sources), but because it would cause the article to suffer even more from WP:RECENTISM. This is a company with a greater than 51-year history. All else equal, we in theory should give just as much weight in the article to the 1971 advertising campaign as the 2021 advertising campaign. But of course since we don't cover the one from 50 years ago, the article should not cover this year's either. This featured article is one of Wikipedia's 0.1% best, and to keep it that way we need to make sure it covers the company at a very high, encyclopedic level. Please feel free to ping me back if any of the above is not clear. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: That clarification on WP:RECENTISM is quite helpful, thank you! There's certainly a lot to learn on Wikipedia, and I'm grateful for the thoughtful responses from editors such as yourself. To make sure I fully understand your reasoning here, and to stick with your advertising campaign example, it sounds like there would need to be longer-term coverage including Cracker Barrel's advertising/marketing campaigns from reliable sources to show that there is a general interest in that part of the company's history. If that were the case, it would be included in the form of a historical narrative summarizing the most notable of those campaigns, in whichever section of the article is most appropriate (either within the existing structure or as a separate section/sub-section). Is that right? There are some other campaigns I was interested in asking about, and your response here will further clarify what information would improve the article and help me determine what would be worth including in my future requests.

One other question, on the topic of maintaining the article's quality. I have a partially fulfilled request above regarding Cracker Barrel's history with Biglari Holdings. The section Conflict with Biglari Holdings still contains some outdated information presented in the present tense. Specifically, it says "The owner of Biglari Holdings, Sardar Biglari, controls a 19.9% share of the company". Would you be willing to update that to past tense and include an "as of 2013" timestamp to indicate when the 19.9% ownership statistic was reported? Thank you so much for your time and for considering my requests. CB JessicaM (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Updates and clarifications for Conflict with Biglari Holdings

Hello again, Editors! I'm here with another suggestion for this article. Specifically, I'd like to propose some updates and clarifications to the Conflict with Biglari Holdings section, as there have been some recent developments that are not currently captured in the article.

• Change "The owner of Biglari Holdings, Sardar Biglari, controls a 19.9% share of the company" to "The owner of Biglari Holdings, Sardar Biglari, said he controlled a 19.9% share of the company in 2013"

I'm making this suggestion because, as Altamel pointed out, with this page's status as a Featured Article it needs high editorial standards. I've included a time stamp, to clarify that the 19.9% ownership figure is not current, as the article suggests at this time. And also updated the language to reflect the language used in the cited source which says, "In a filing with the SEC the other day, the activist investor said his Biglari Holdings (NYSE:BH) had acquired a near-20% stake in Cracker Barrel…" Here is the SEC filing it seems to refer to, in case editors would like to use that source for verification.

• Add to the end of paragraph one: "Sardar Biglari made another attempt to join Cracker Barrel's board in 2020, which shareholders rejected. At the time, he reportedly controlled approximately 8.7% of the company.

This update shows that Biglari's attempts persist, and provides more recent details on his ownership in the company, in line with the above update clarifying that the 19.9% ownership figure currently in the article is not accurate.

• In paragraph two, Change "Biglari has requested to be on the board of directors three times, and has been denied each time by a vote of shareholders." to "As of 2020, Biglari had made five attempts to join the board as a candidate himself or by proxy. Each attempt has been denied by a shareholder vote."

My thought with this update is to make the figure recent, and provide another time stamp so the content does not become outdated and inaccurate. I've included a source in the proposed text that I hope is suitable for supporting the change from "three" to "five" attempts.

References

Please feel free to leave feedback or make suggestions. I understand that editors may prefer to make changes or may not find all of my suggestions relevant. I'll continue to avoid making any direct edits myself due to my conflict of interest. I appreciate any assistance in making improvements to the article. Thanks, CB JessicaM (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello FeldBum. I thought I'd check-in and see if I can offer any additional assistance as you review this request. I appreciate your work here as a volunteer and am happy to do what I can to make that easier for you. Thanks again, CB JessicaM (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made two of the three requested edits, which represent clarifications and updated information. I did not make the first of your three requested edits because it appears more intended to bias the intend of that section, which is sourced and relevant to the subject matter. I’ll leave it to other editors to determine whether that change should be included. Go4thProsper (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Go4thProsper: Thank you for taking the time to implement those changes and weigh in on the other. Do you think it would be more appropriate to focus instead on just updating the language to past tense "Sardar Biglari, controlled a 19.9% share..." and add a timestamp to clarify when it's referring to? My top priority here is that the article be clear to readers, and I'm happy to defer to what editors think is best. Again, thanks for the updates and sharing your thoughts here. CB JessicaM (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

FeldBum, do you have any thoughts on the remaining portion of this request or my proposed revision per Go4thProsper's note? Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

CB JessicaM, I have implemented your proposal as "According to SEC filings", which is a more traditional language and doesn't introduce bias. JBchrch talk 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: thanks for that addition, your change makes sense. What do you think about changing "controls" to past tense? Since the article also has more recent statistics of the Biglari Holdings ownership (For example, this San Antonio Express News article and this San Antonio Business Journal story confirm ownership of approximately 8.7% as of 2020), it seems confusing to readers if the outdated 19.9% ownership statistic is written in the present tense. Thanks again for your assistance! CB JessicaM (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Brad's Wife meme in the article

I think the Brad's Wife meme should be referenced in the article. It has reliable coverage [22], [23], and [24]. I wanted to discuss it here due to prior discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be helpful to outline what has changed since the prior discussion in 2017. Kuru (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Especially since all three of those links are to 2017 articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge Leadership and Corporate Affairs?

Hi there! I'm back with another request for this article. I've been thinking about changes that would make the article more evergreen, and require less maintenance.

• Would it be possible to remove Leadership and instead just list the CEO in Corporate affairs? I think this change would make the article more evergreen by having fewer positions to keep current.

UnitedStatesian and JBchrch, tagging you both here since you've responded to other recent requests.

Thanks so much for the continued help from editors to review my requests and implement appropriate content so I can remain hands-off with my COI. Happy to answer any questions. CB JessicaM (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

JessicaM, so just to clarify, you would like to remove the section entirely and just mention the CEO in Corporate affairs? If that is the case, could you just provide where (or how) you would like it to be introduced in the Corporate affairs section? Thanks. JBchrch talk 21:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: That's correct. I think it could be kept as simple as saying "Sandra B. Cochran is the CEO and president of the company. She's held the position since September 2011. Prior to this position, Cochran served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the company from April 2009 until November 2010 and was named President and Chief Operating Officer of the company in November 2010." Placing at the top of the section would probably make the most sense. Thanks for your help! CB JessicaM (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: Are the titles "Vice President" and "President" really necessary in this context? Couldn't we just say Prior to this position, Cochran served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the company from April 2009 until November 2010 and was named President and Chief Operating Officer of the company in November 2010? JBchrch talk 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Those changes look good! Thanks for working with me on this, CB JessicaM (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: No problem! Feel free to review my changes. [25] JBchrch talk 21:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Those changes look great to me, thank you! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Restaurant decor warehouse request

Hello! I have another suggestion for this page. Cracker Barrel's decor warehouse and the Singleton family are a unique and interesting part of the company's history. The warehouse is briefly mentioned, but I was wondering if we can expand it a bit? Here's my idea for content that could be added to Locations, service, and decor, with sourcing that supports the change:

Evins reached out to Don and Kathleen Singleton, who ran an antique store in Lebanon, Tennessee, and asked them to decorate the first Cracker Barrel location in 1969. The Singletons decorated each of the early restaurants, and their son, Larry Singleton, took over the job in 1979, which he held until his retirement in 2019. Items received or purchased by the company are brought to the facility to be cleaned, restored, and cataloged. As of 2018, more than 90,000 items were stored in the warehouse.

References

JBchrch, tagging you here to ask if there is any chance you're up for reviewing another request?

As usual, I will let editors determine if this change is worth implementing due to my COI. Thank you for looking! CB JessicaM (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. I saw your edit summaries and that you changed my request back after I altered the wording. Apologies if my changes were confusing. I've changed my request to use the word "decor" because upon further review I thought it was a better descriptor since the warehouse stores decorations for the restaurants. If you have thoughts on whether this is an appropriate addition to the article, I'd be happy to hear them. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It just seems to me that "decor" is not the term they use, and not the kind of term their customers would be likely to use. It clashes with the folksy style they are shooting for. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Not sure if you saw my COI disclosure at the top of the Talk page, but I am an employee of Cracker Barrel. I can confirm that we use the term "decor warehouse" internally, but I also think it makes sense from a Wikipedia perspective. The current article uses the term in Locations, service, and decor:"The decor at each location typically includes artifacts..." and Wikipedia currently redirects "decor" to the interior design article, which accurately describes the purpose of the warehouse, it supports the design scheme for our restaurants. We don't sell antiques, and the items themselves fall more into the realm of cultural artifacts.

I appreciate your time giving feedback here. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Notable enough for inclusion IMO. Thanks for providing references @CB JessicaM. Always helpful. DatraxMada (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@DatraxMada: Thanks for your assistance implementing this request, I apprecate your help! CB JessicaM (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Image changes

Hello, this is Jessica from Cracker Barrel, stopping by with another request. I looked through the images of Cracker Barrel on Wikimedia Commons and saw a few I think would improve the article.

• Can we change the photo of a Cracker Barrel in Minnesota with this image? I think this is a better general example of the restaurant's typical façade.
• This close up photo of peg solitaire shows the subject clearer, could it replace the current photo of a guest playing the game.
• Lastly, Locations, service, and decor mentions that "Each location features a front porch lined with wooden rocking chairs..." I thought adding this photo would be a good compliment to that example.

Due to my COI, I don't edit the article myself and instead rely on other editors to review my requests and implement appropriate changes. I'm open to questions and feedback. Thanks for taking the time to look! CB JessicaM (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey CB JessicaM, I added the rocking chair photo, as I feel like that adds to the content of the page. I'm torn on the others, but leaning to making that change. Any feedback from other editors? TY --FeldBum (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@FeldBum: thank you for that addition. I'll check back in a bit to see if other editors have responded. Do you have any thoughts on the decor warehouse request above? Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one CB JessicaM. Let me check now. --FeldBum (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like someone got that one, CB JessicaM. I added in another photo and so I think I'll close this off. --FeldBum (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@FeldBum: thanks for that! Do you think it's necessary to have this along with the image of a Cracker Barrel in New markets and refocus? I see they have the same caption, so it seems like one would be enough. Happy to defer to whatever you think is best. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting present tense use in Biglari

Hello again! I'd like to revisit a request I made a while back. I worked with editors to update the ownership figures in Conflict with Biglari Holdings. One sentence in the first paragraph of that subsection still uses present tense to describe outdated information, which I think is confusing for readers. "According to SEC filings, Biglari Holdings controls a 19.9% share of the company, just short of the 20% needed to trigger a shareholder rights plan, more commonly termed a "poison pill"."

• I suggest changing this language to be past tense, and possibly add a timestamp. The information in that sentence was accurate as of 2013.

FeldBum and DatraxMada, since you've both recently responded to my requests, I was hoping one of you could take a look at this. Let me know if you have questions or feedback. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey @CB JessicaM:, I'll take a look. --FeldBum (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey @CB JessicaM:, it's a good edit (I hate fuzzy time in WP) so I made it. --FeldBum (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Cracker Barrel name origin context

Hello again! This is Jessica with another suggestion for the article. Currently, there's a brief mention of the name's origin in First location and early company history:with a name chosen to give it a Southern country theme.

• The current wording is a bit vague and doesn't explain why it evokes a "Southern country theme". I'd like to suggest adding a bit more history on the name, to give readers more context. Here's something I think would work:

The name comes from old-time country stores which formerly served as a gathering place for those in the community. Typical country stores contained "cracker barrels" that were used to transport soda crackers and then repurposed into makeshift tables. People would stand around the barrels chatting and catching up, similar to modern-day water coolers.

• This article from Southern Living talks about the name's origins.

I don't edit the article directly myself because of my COI. I'm grateful to all of the editors who help review my requests. FeldBum, thanks so much for helping correct the fuzzy time in the Biglari section. If you're available to review this request, I'd be glad to keep collaborating with you. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey CB JessicaM, taking a look now. --FeldBum (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ping @CB JessicaM:. Done with some edits so as not to be repetitive. Interesting stuff. --FeldBum (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@FeldBum: The changes you made look fine to me, thanks for adding this. If you're interested, I've posted a new request below. Thanks again for all the help! CB JessicaM (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel's work with Dolly Parton

Hi there! I'm back with another suggestion for the article. Cracker Barrel's done a lot of work in the country music industry, and in particular our work with Dolly Parton has a history that's worth mentioning in the article. I put together some content (see below) and I'm curious what editors think?

• Cracker Barrel's work in the country music industry includes collaborations with Dolly Parton. The company first worked with Parton in 2009 on the collector's edition of her album Backwoods Barbie. Since then, the company has released collector's editions of other Parton albums. It also brought together Parton and the a cappella group Pentatonix to create a remix of Parton's song Jolene, which won a grammy award for best country duo/group performance in 2017. Parton also performed as part of Cracker Barrel's appearance in the 2020 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

References

Huge thank you to editors for helping review my edit requests so I can follow all of the COI guidelines, I appreciate the ongoing support! CB JessicaM (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ping @CB JessicaM: I might trim this a smidge, but I think it's worth adding. What section would it go in? Are you thinking of a new section? --FeldBum (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@FeldBum: That sounds good, I trust your judgment on what's appropriate. Originally, I thought this would fit nicely in the In popular culture section that was added recently, but I see that's been removed. If you agree, we could add that section back in, I might have a couple of other content ideas for it. Otherwise, would it make sense to have a subsection in History for CB's music industry work? Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree with removing that Popular Culture section (it really didn't have much), CB JessicaM. Let's add to History for now and I'll think about a separate section as we add in more. --FeldBum (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: Done, with some edits. Can't really talk about country music work when we're only referencing one artist for now. BTW, in the future, please add {{edit COI}} to your requests to loop in other editors too. Thanks! --FeldBum (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: The addition looks great. Thanks for adding that, and for the reminder about the request edit template. CB JessicaM (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

FA sweeps

Looking at this older featured article as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. The short awards section is sourced only to sources from the early 2010s; surely there is more recent content to include here. Additionally, a couple of the sources used here are no longer considered to be reliable - The Motley Fool and The Street. Additionally, it should be checked to make sure that all financial statistics provided are fully up to date. For instance, the lead uses the 2019 value for assets, but presumably 2020 financials have been released by now. Hog Farm _Talk 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for bringing this up! I've been working with editors to update the page and would like to help with this. Since I'm an employee of Cracker Barrel and have a COI, I don't edit the article directly. I've collected some sources and figures to make the suggested updates. FeldBum, if you're available, would you be willing to help with this FA sweep?

• Here's our 2021 annual report and some updated stats for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2021:

• Cracker Barrel locations: 664
• Revenue: $2.821 billion
• Operating income: $366 million
• Net income: $254 million
• Total assets: $2.391 billion
• Total shareholder equity: $663 million
• Employees: 70,000

• I collected some more recent awards for editors to consider:

• Out and Equal Workplace Advocates named Cracker Barrel’s LGBT Alliance ERG as the 2018 Employee Resource Group of the Year. Source: Knox News
• 2019 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. Source: The Military Times
• 2019 America’s Best Customer Service according to a Newsweek and Statista survey. Source: Newsweek
• 2021 Top casual dining chain for treating all guests with respect according to a Technomic survey. Source: Restaurant Business

I have some replacement sources, but I'm not sure they fully support the current content, so some changes might be needed. I'll defer to editors on what's appropriate.

• Here's an SEC report that I think can replace the Motley Fool source.

• The Street source was a bit more difficult to find a direct replacement for. This article from Restaurant Dive is more recent, and has some similar details about Biglari.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to name and infobox

Hello! Jessica from Cracker Barrel here again. I saw that IMakeBurgers recently changed the company name in the Introduction and Infobox from "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc." to "CBOCS Properties, Inc.". The name should be Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., which is the parent company. CBOCS Properties, Inc. is a subsidiary. This SEC report can confirm these details. Would someone mind changing that back?

IMakeBurgers, I also noticed that you added 2021 financial data to the Infobox. Thank you for updating that! Do you think we could remove the 2020 data so that Infobox does not become too cluttered? I think it's standard to just have one year of financial data there. I'd also invite FeldBum to weigh in here, in case you have any thoughts.

I don't make direct edits because of my COI. Thanks so much for helping keep the article current! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It looked like the name got changed back, but I'll check out the financial data. --FeldBum (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Sounds good, thanks! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. CB JessicaM (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: I took a look at other pubic company pages, and you're right that the standard is a single, recent year, so I updated the infobo. All done. --FeldBum (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Much appreciated! Did you by chance see the alternate text I suggested in the Music partnerships request above? Thanks for all your help! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Logo update and images

Hi there! This is Jessica from Cracker Barrel with another round of requests. I have a current logo to share, and some other image suggestions and questions.

• I uploaded an updated version of the logo here, can it replace the logo currently in the Infobox?
• The current photo in Food and gift shop is a bit limited. I think this gift shop photo on Wikimedia Commons would be an improvement because it gives a better overall view.
• The article mentions the standard location decor in a few spots. Can we add this photo to Locations, service, and decor? I think it would be a good visual representation to go along with the descriptors.
• FeldBum, I reviewed our previous discussion about images and noticed a couple of items we never fully settled on so I thought I'd check in:

• What do you think about replacing the current picture of a guest playing the peg board game with this photo that shows the game more clearly?
• Can we replace the facade photo in New markets and refocus with the one you added to Community involvement?

Thanks for reviewing! As a reminder, I don't make direct edits because of my COI, but I am here if anyone has any questions. CB JessicaM (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi CB JessicaM, I'll take a look at these. At first glance, all seem easy/doable --FeldBum (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: I appreciate it, thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. CB JessicaM (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: Looks like the logo got removed. I'd suggest setting up a page on Wikimedia that explains that you (on behalf of Cracker Barrel) own the rights. I think I could get at least one more of those photos on the page. Taking a look now. --FeldBum (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: I appreciate you for looking into this. At this time, I am most comfortable uploading the logo to Wikipedia for fair use, per Wikipedia:Logos. Since my last upload has been deleted, I uploaded the image again • here. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just checking back in after the weekend on this edit request. @FeldBum: I noticed you haven't been online for a bit and hope all is well. I am hoping to get the logo updated by April 1st or it will be deleted again. @DatraxMada: maybe you are available to assist? You have been helpful in the past! Any chance you could replace the current logo with this file? Let me know if you have any questions. CB JessicaM (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done I've implemented two of your requests, see below for responses on the others:

1.  Done Updated the logo to the current version you uploaded and removed the orphaned non-free image template from the image page to avoid deletion
2.  Done Swapped the image in the "Food and gift shop" section with the one you suggested
3.  Deferred to other editors I've not added the fireplace image you suggested as it bears a copyright watermark. I'm not comfortable using watermarked images so deferring to other editors who may be more familiar with Wikipedia guidance on these. If a non-watermarked image of similar quality can be found, I'd be happy to review.
4.  Not done I haven't swapped the peg game image with the one you suggested. The current one appears to show the game in the context of a Cracker Barrel. The suggested one lacks that context and I don't feel it's a higher quality image and therefore doesn't enhance the article. Image choice especially can be subjective so you are, of course, free to seek consensus from other editors.
5.  Not done I haven't swapped the storefront image from "Community involvement" with the one from "New markets and refocus" as the latter image does a better job of showing the entirety of a typical storefront (as described in the article). As above, especially since image choice can be subjective, feel free to seek consensus.

-- DatraxMada (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: Looks like DatraxMada did these already, so I'll mark these as closed unless you have some more feedback or requests. --FeldBum (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum:Thanks for checking in! And thank you DatraxMada for jumping in and sorting out the orphaned image tag. I'll leave my thoughts below and if you think further changes make sense, that's great. However, if you both feel this is addressed, I am fine with the request being closed.

• For the watermarked image, I looked on Wikimedia Commons and didn't see a better image of our decor. I understand if the watermarked image can't be used.
• FeldBum, for the façade and peg game images, it seemed like you had planned to make those changes, do you still want to do that? If the consensus is to keep them as is, that's okay.

Thanks so much for all the help with this, and all the requests you've answered. CB JessicaM (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think @DatraxMada's responses here make sense. We have the new logo and a better food and gift image. While the copyright on the fireplace image is good, as per Wikipedia:WATERMARK, we shouldn't include a file with a visible watermark on it. I don't feel strongly about the other images. Maybe there's another place in the article that makes sense to include them. I think, for now, best to mark this request as done. --FeldBum (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: I think we can just close this and not worry about those two images, sounds like consensus is to keep the current photos. Do you have time to finish up the Music partnerships edit we were discussing above? Thanks for all your help! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, let's close this and I'll get back to the music edits. Those slipped through the cracks. --FeldBum (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Old logo in infobox

Hello! Jessica from Cracker Barrel here again. I saw that DemonDays64 replaced the logo in the infobox with this edit. I wanted to note that logo is not the current Cracker Barrel logo. The current logo is named File:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Logo.png. @DatraxMada and FeldBum: Pinging you both as you reviewed my earlier request about the logo. Thanks for reviewing! As a reminder, I don't make direct edits because of my COI, but I am here if anyone has any questions. CB JessicaM (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: oh -- so looks like it's that the color is wrong and the top lettering isn't used anymore? Fixing right now DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: Yes, exactly right. Thanks so much for quickly taking care of this. CB JessicaM (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Music partnerships and revisiting the Yoders

Hi, Jessica here. I'm back with another couple of requests for editors to review. As a reminder, I do not make direct edits because of my COI. FeldBum, since you helped me with the Dolly Parton content, I thought you might be interested in weighing in here as well.

• Can we add some additional examples of Cracker Barrel's partnerships and work in the music industry to Partnerships?
  

• During Cracker Barrel's 2019 'Five Decades, One Voice' campaign, the company highlighted female country music singers such as Loretta Lynn, Trisha Yearwood, and Brandi Carlile after a study found female country artists receive less radio time than male artists. The initiative also included creating all-female playlists for the company's restaurants. The campaign won a Clio Award in 2020.
• In 2021, Cracker Barrel launched the 'Care it Forward' campaign, in which the company partnered with musicians such as Shane McAnally, Jennifer Nettles, and Cece Winans and connected them with up-and-coming musicians as mentors.
• Cracker Barrel's other partnerships in the country music industry have included collaborating with The Oakridge Boys on their album "It's Only Natural"; exclusive music deals with Alan Jackson; and bringing together Ingrid Andress, Kimberly Schlapman, and Karen Fairchild to collaborate on a version of Andress' song "More Hearts Than Mine".

• A while back, I asked about adding a mention of the Yoders as part of an addition about our West Coast expansion. The reviewing editor noted that mentioning them didn't fit in that section. I wonder if it would fit in the Restaurants section? I reworked my previous content a bit to this:

• One elderly couple, Ray and Wilma Yoder, drove a combined total of more than 5 million miles to visit 644 Cracker Barrel locations. When the company opened their 645th restaurant, in Tualatin, Oregon, it flew the Yoders out for the grand opening and presented them with custom Cracker Barrel aprons and rocking chairs, among other gifts.

References

As always, I appreciate the time volunteer editors spend reviewing my requests, and will defer to the community on what's appropriate for the article. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can help with these. The only trouble I see is that "exclusive music deals" seems a little vague, but I can look it up. The restaurant/Yoders line looks fine to me too. --FeldBum (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the Yoders for now. Very cute story. --FeldBum (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Thanks so much for adding that! I see what you mean about "exclusive music deals". Do you think that with this source we could say "working with Alan Jackson to release an album along with a collection of clothing and various collectibles."? Happy to hear your thoughts. CB JessicaM (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM: That should work. I'll take a look and add. --FeldBum (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Sounds great! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help out here. Thanks, CB JessicaM (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: has the above been evaluated for inclusion into the article? Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@CB JessicaM and @Z1720 Yep, I included it. I'll close this off. I did the remaining music edits too FeldBum (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Sorry for my late reply. I just returned from a vacation in Alaska for a couple of weeks. Those additions look great! Thank you again for all the time you've put into reviewing my requests. CB JessicaM (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Update dead link and date in Race- and gender-based discrimination lawsuits section

Hi, Jessica here. I'm back with a couple of requests for editors to review. As a reminder, I do not make direct edits because of my COI. I noticed that there is some vague language and a permanent dead link in the Race- and gender-based discrimination lawsuits section that is cited twice in the article, and I wonder if an editor would consider adding a timestamp and replacing the source for me?

• This sentence is vague: "The company has been praised[by whom?] for its gender diversity, particularly on its board of directors, which includes three women out of eleven total board members." And I see the tag noting that it should be attributed. With the source below, I think we could change that to something clearer, like: "In 2011, the company received praise from other companies and politicians for its inclusivity efforts, including its board of directors gender make up, which included three women out of 10 total board members at the time. Its chief executive officer (CEO), Sandra Cochran, is the second woman in Tennessee to hold that office in a publicly-traded company.

References

FeldBum any chance I can get you to review another one of my requests?

As always, I appreciate the time volunteer editors spend reviewing my requests. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure @CB JessicaM. I think we still need to specify which politicians or companies praised Cracker Barrel. With that, the changes look good to me. --FeldBum (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: That makes sense. The source above specifies Double Cola and Mary Mancini.

Thanks for all your help, if you need any additional assistance from me for this request, the music partnerships, or my new community involvement and off-premise request, please let me know. CB JessicaM (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Does my edit look good? I think we can close this one off now. --FeldBum (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: That looks great, thank you! CB JessicaM (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent Change to Introduction

Hello, I saw this recent change to the introduction, which replaced "doing business as" with "commonly known as simply". Would an editor change this back to "doing business as" since that's more clear and encyclopedic. FeldBum, are you available to review this request?

I'm an employee of Cracker Barrel, so I don't make any direct edits in order to follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Let me track down the change and see the reasoning first. -- FeldBum (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: I appreciate it, thanks! Here is the edit, if that helps. No reasoning was given. I also see the article was vandalized on August 15, would you mind reverting that, too? Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, both fixed. -- FeldBum (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Looks great, thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel corporate

Sorry I went to Cracker Barrel the service was slow waitress wasn't pleasant until it was time to check out . My husband and I once we were seated it our 15 min to ask what we wanted to drink and another hour to Chet our order. I got up to leave when our arrived. I will contact corporate office 2601:C5:101:1C70:C187:CCC:7103:3565 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Herostratus (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Operations and Community involvement updates

Hi, Jessica here. I'm back with a couple of requests for editors to review. Just a reminder, I do not make direct edits because of my COI. I am requesting an editor add recent collabs into the Community Involvement section.

 Done In 2016 Cracker Barrel partnered with Operation Homefront and launched Operation Rocker. The collaboration with Operation Homefront provided Cracker Barrel rocking chairs to families involved in the Homes on the Homefront program and the Star Spangled Baby Showers, a program for expectant military families.

 Done In late 2021, Cracker Barrel launched a new initiative called Food for Families aimed at addressing food insecurity, hunger and reducing food waste in rural and underserved communities and in middle Tennessee. This is in addition to a new partnership with the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Foundation and Feeding America.

I also am re-proposing content on our off-premise sales program for the Operations section. I have provided editors with additional context and updated details on how that's progressed, as the declining editor suggested.

 Done Cracker Barrel partnered with DoorDash in 2020, in response to restaurant closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was the restaurant’s first partnership with a delivery service. Since then, the company has continued to grow its off-premise sales, launched two virtual brands including the Pancake Kitchen and Chicken n’ Biscuits, as well as two new “Ghost Kitchens” in the Los Angeles area called Cracker Barrel Kitchen which only processes off-premise orders. In February 2021, the company announced in an earnings call that 30% of it's total sales in the previous quarter came from off-premise sales, an increase of 78%.

FeldBum any chance I can get you to review another one of my requests? As always, I appreciate the time volunteer editors spend reviewing and updating the Cracker Barrel article. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, @CB JessicaM, taking a look now. --FeldBum (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime! CB JessicaM (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@FeldBum: Did you evaluate the above proposal? Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Edited and added in the community involvement pieces. Looking at the off-site content now. -- FeldBum (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Implemented last edit. Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Fix error

Hi, Jessica from Cracker Barrel here. I just noticed that on May 10, an anonymous editor introduced some errors with these edits. In the infobox, they replaced the founder, Dan Evins, and William W. McCartten in Key people with the name "Jason Reed Gable Jr". I don't know who that is, and would like to ask for those changes to be reversed. I do not make any direct changes to the article because of my COI. Thank you! CB JessicaM (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your meticulous ethics related to COI editing, and apologies for missing that vandalism. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kuru: Thank you very much! I appreciate you keeping an eye on the article. CB JessicaM (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Financial updates

Hi, Jessica from Cracker Barrel here. It's been a while so I thought I'd drop by with some updated financials for the article's Infobox from our 2022 Form 10-K:

• Revenue = US$3.267 billion
• Operating income = US$153 million
• Net income = US$131.88 million
• Assets = US$2.294 billion
• Equity = $US2.294 billion
• Employees = 73,000 (2022)

@FeldBum: It's been a minute, but if you've got time to review and implement these changes it's always great collaborating with you. As standard, I will not make any direct changes to the article because of my COI. Thank you! CB JessicaM (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Revenue would be correctly rounded to US$3.268 billion, and assets and equity to US$2.295 billion. Otherwise, this is fine. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. You can provide a link to this go-ahead in your edit summary for clarity. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: Hi! Thank you for reviewing and catching my rounding errors. I know this article gets a bit of extra scrutiny because of its Featured status. For that reason, I'd rather not implement any changes, even basic information such as this, so there is no chance of confusion about whether I've followed COI guidelines. Is there any chance you'd be willing to implement on my behalf? Thanks again, CB JessicaM (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)