Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cracker Barrel/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [1].

Cracker Barrel

edit
Notified: WT:FOOD, WT:COMPANIES, WT:TENN, User talk:WWB Too, User talk:CB JessicaM, User talk:Silver seren, User talk:Graham Beards, talk page notice 2023-07-14 and 2021-12-27

Review section

edit

To copy what I said on the talk page:

  • The "early company history" section feels like it could be fleshed out more. Only one paragraph covers the entirety of the 1960s-80s. Said section also hits a lot of vagueness. "Eventually" they got rid of gas stations. Okay, when? Did any other notable events happen early in the company's history? When was their 10th, 20th, 50th location? Any prototypes? Anything about that odd one in a mall in Cookeville? Surely there's more interesting stuff about the early years.
  • Far too many sentences follow the structure "in [year], X happened. In [year], Y happened." Also a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that could be integrated elsewhere.
  • "Fans" section seems unnecessary and could be integrated elsewhere.
  • "Leadership" section feels overly split up. "Executives" is only one sentence and could be combined elsewhere.
  • "Controversies" seems to be an WP:UNDUE catchall with a ton of one-sentence paragraphs about non-notable events. This section also seems to challenge the article's neutrality.
  • Many sources are incomplete, such as "CBRL 10-K", whatever that is. Also a couple of dead links.

These issues were raised two weeks ago on the talk page, with no response or attempt at fixing them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comparison can be made between the current article and what it was when it originally passed FAC. Some of the changes since then are clearly an improvement. Others are just irrelevant bloat that was never a part of the article in the first place, that "Fans" section included and the strangely worded Leadership section. I think a lot of the WP:UNDUE that's been added can just be stripped out and other parts drastically pared down to return it to a more consolidated state. What do you think? SilverserenC 02:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the "early company history" is woefully underdeveloped. It just skips straight from "first location" to "had a crapton of locations by the 90s" with a bunch of vague handwaves. There's also a lot of "In X, Y happened. In Z, A happened." type prose that needs to be redone. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, though from what I recollect from back then when we were building the article, there honestly wasn't much to put in that time period. Other than expanding, not much of note really happened to the company, they didn't start doing major partnerships and changes to their business and brand until later. SilverserenC 02:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a decade ago. Surely we can find more now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have been over a decade ago, but I don't understand how we allowed an UNDUE "Controversies" section in this FA, when everything in that section is either History, Policies, or something else. A new organization, TOC is needed, and there are stubby paras. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I remember, a controversies section was not wanted at the time when WWB and I were working on it and the material was integrated into other parts of the article. But the others at FAC and on the talk page claimed that that was an attempt to hide the controversies and reduce their significance within the article. SilverserenC 21:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you should be able to integrate them into the article now, as most of that is ancient history. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - issues mentioned by Sandy are non trivial and have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose, currency, neutrality and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Cracker_Barrel/archive1&oldid=1173437585"