Wikipedia:Peer review/Cracker Barrel Old Country Store/archive2

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed a GA candidacy (and a GA review), along with the peer review that came before that. Now WWB and I wish to take it on to FA, but we want to have this peer review first to focus specifically on the Featured Article Criteria. The more we fix up now, the less we have to do at FAC, right?

Anyways, WWB has a large COI in this article and, as a member of Wikiproject Cooperation (as is he), i'm here to help assist in the improvement of this article. Depending on how extensive the improvements suggested in this peer review are, we may need to make a userspace version of the article so that WWB can help as well, since he will not be actively editing the mainspace version of the article. But, for now, I think it's best to see what sort of peer review responses we get.

Thanks, Silver seren^C 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - lede says: "During the 1990s, the company was the subject of controversy for discriminatory practices against gay and African American employees."

However, the heading in the body is: "Alleged racial and sexual discrimination".
In reality it was sued for racial discrimination against employees and guests, and sexual harassment against employees, but never for discrimination against gays, as I recall. Just demonstrated against. "After demonstrations by gay rights groups the company ended its policy and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation."
"Policy toward sexual orientation" section needs some minor rewording, so that it follows a chronological order and is not so clunky.
The lede needs correcting. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather busy until Thursday evening, so I hope you won't mind if I put off really focusing on this until then. Silver seren^C 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, i've been having (and still am having) internet connection problems with my laptop. But I should have internet access while i'm working tomorrow, so i'll make these changes then. Silver seren^C 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i've changed the lede so that it discusses the sexual orientation policy change seperately from the discrimination against African-Americans and female employees. Also, i've tried to emphasize the dates and chronology in the policy section better. How does it look? Silver seren^C 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited a little in the lede and the final section. I think the article is fine and covers the controversial issues, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I noticed one dead link and marked it - ref 21, I think. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's good. Do you think there's anything else that they might be specifically looking for at AfD? Maybe something special added to the references? They always seem to say something about the reference format. :/ Silver seren^C 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. I'll check it out. Silver seren^C 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...weird. A direct url link doesn't work, even when that's the url on the page when i'm looking right at the article in the Tennessean. Maybe i'll just use a mirror. Silver seren^C 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD - Articles for deletion? I can't see any reason for that at all! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not AfD. *facepalms* Sorry, FAC, I meant to say. I'm kinda wrapped up in an AfD right now, so i'm a little distracted. Silver seren^C 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]