Toolbox
Copying check Manual of Style

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Do not edit the above article, please! Instead, please edit this draft copy, thank you.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to work on improving it to the point where it can be submitted for a Good Article review after this peer review. I would also like to get it to FA after that, so any improvements needed toward that regard that are pointed out would be appreciated.

The user that I will be co-working with (and who wrote almost all of the content of the article) is User:WWB Too. He has an admitted Conflict of Interest in the topic, but wants to make this article the best it can possibly be while also falling in line with all of the neutrality and other requirements of Wikipedia. (Refer to Wikiproject Cooperation for more info.) Because of this COI issue, he and I will be making improvements to the article in this exact draft copy. When referring to improvements made after your comments, please refer to the draft copy and not the actual article, as the improvements will not be added there until after this peer review.

Lastly, there is an advert tag in the article added by User:Dr.K., who has indicated that he would like the reviewers to see if they agree with the issues he has pointed out in this talk page section and to suggest ways to improve the article if they agree or, if they disagree with his assessment, to feel free to remove the tag. Thus, please also comment in regard to any potential advertisement issues when reviewing the article.

Thanks, Silverseren^C 04:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In examining this draft, the first thing that appears to me is the way that The Tennessean has served as a cheerleader for this (local) company and its interests over the decades. Forbes and the New York Times are the kinds of sources we should be leaning upon. I think you should be blunter, too, about the fact that WWB Too admits that he was hired by the subject to re-write this article. This isn't some eager intern in the mailroom or freshman in the frat house; this is Wikipedia-editing-for-hire. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikiproject Cooperation clearly states that. And the negativity isn't needed here, please. We're trying to improve this article. Now, as for The Tennessean, the issue I have with your statement is that it's an opinion, we can't just pick and choose which reliable sources to use just because we don't like what one is saying. Is there specific information that the sources are giving that you don't like? Silverseren^C 22:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll try to address neutrality as well as other general improvement suggestions. I made a couple minor MOS changes and did some copyediting. Overall I think the article was mostly neutral, with a few sections that came across as too positive. I don't think this should necessarily be attributed to the author's ties with the company, it is often very hard to write neutrally--particularly when writing about corporations. Sometimes it's just that most of the available sources are generally positive. (I haven't read any of the sources cited here though.) I gave some suggestions below about how I thought this should be made more neutral, but feel free to disregard my suggestions if you have reason to think that they're not improvements. Sorry if this is a bit jumbled...
• Note about my neutrality: I've never eaten at a Cracker Barrel though I've driven by a million times. I'm more of a spicy ethnic food type of guy myself--take that to mean what you will about my neutrality :) Also, I saw the ANI thread and I thought that WWB was being treated unfairly, I tend to take a "judge them by their fruit" view of COI editing. That being said, I don't really think the advertising tag is needed (though I tend to dislike maintenance templates in general). The article does seem generally positive towards Cracker Barrel, but not obscenely so.

Images

• You have two images right next to each other early in the article and then none for the rest, maybe spread them out.

• I've moved the second image down to the end of the history section, as a representation of the modern looks of a Cracker Barrel restaurant. Hopefully that's split up, like you wanted. Silverseren^C 10:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead is fairly small. Noting criticism in the lead might help assuage concerns about balance. I usually air on the side of large leads though.
• United States and restaurant probably doesn't need to be linked in the lead.

• United States and restaurant delinked. Silverseren^C 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

• I would suggest putting the history section before the restaurants section.

• Moved. You made me have to reorganize the images again. :P Silverseren^C 10:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You note the number of locations in "Innovation and later growth" and "Locations and service".

• WWB got it. Silverseren^C 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to be consistent about "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store" vs ""Cracker Barrel" after the lead.

• I made all the instances after the lede to be just Cracker Barrel. Silverseren^C 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could possibly use a decent copyeditor to pick out small prose and punctuation issues, but overall prose and punctuation seems to be ok.
• There are a lot of small sections and subsections--I've been guilty of that myself--the article would probably read better if they were combined into larger chunks.

• Done, in several steps. Under the top-level "History" section, I've combined "New markets" and "Refocus" to become "New markets and refocus". Under "Corporate overview" I have combined "Business model" and "Partnerships and sponsorships" to become "Business model and partnerships". I have moved two top-level headings from the end of the article, "Community involvement" and "Diversity" into this section. Not only are there no short sections any longer, but each top-level section has three sub-sections within. Hope you like it. WWB Too (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Kraft Cracker Barrel brand officially tied to the company that runs the stores? Maybe mention that in the article.

• They are not related; the disambig hatnote exists to point readers to the Kraft brand, which is probably all we can do about it. WWB Too (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New markets

• "Cracker Barrel's consistent growth in the 1980s and 1990s was noted by industry journals and Forbes magazine". I would prefer to just state that it consistently grew in the 80s and 90s and have the industry journals and Forbes in the references.

• WWB got that one. Silverseren^C 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "but continued to offer its most popular menu items, including country fried steak and roast beef, in all restaurants." Maybe just say "its original menu items in all restaurants" or something. That sentence did seem a bit promotional.

• I swapped out for your advised wording. Silverseren^C 00:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus

• "Its president at the time stated that the chain" Maybe mention the president and give him a redlink?

• WWB got it. Silverseren^C 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation and later growth

• "In 2006, it updated its marketing, also to encourage new customers, changing the design of its highway billboard advertisements to include images of menu items as well as the company's logo." What were the billboard ads like before they changed?

• Formerly, just the logo. Reworded to make this more clear. WWB Too (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, Cracker Barrel continued to grow and perform well." Not sure this adds much, almost sounds like boasting.

• Removed. WWB Too (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " In September 2011, Cracker Barrel announced that its revenue for the 2011 fiscal year was $2.43 billion." Not sure whether this is needed, you don't give specific numbers for most years.

• Removed. And the figure is still in the infobox, so the information is not lost entirely. WWB Too (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decor

• I don't know if it's really necessary to note the name of the decor manager.

• WWB got it. Silverseren^C 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention that "the decor of each store typically includes artifacts related to the local history of the area." and that "The theme of each restaurant is tailored to the local history and environment," maybe combine them/remove one?

• WWB got it. Silverseren^C 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• Ideally it would be nice to combine positive and negative reception in one section.

• Do you mean combining the Reception section with the Controversies section? Seems to me they are separate topics; Cracker Barrel has received significant positive press attention for their menu, decor, and service; I'm not familiar with any news stories about how people don't like that. Meanwhile, the discrimination issues from the 1990s were largely about employment practices. Unless I'm missing an angle here, I'd probably recommend leaving it as is. WWB Too (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I guess there isn't much you can do with that then. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe think about removing the part about the two polls, I understand the reasoning in including them but it comes across as a bit heavy on the praise.

• This is difficult for me to pull, since my understanding is that these polls were / are considered important in the industry. That said, if it's agreed press releases are insufficient, then the NRN poll is unsupported, so I've removed it. I've amended the R&I poll and moved it to the end; it seems a fitting conclusion. Also, it's now all one paragraph, which is more pleasing to the eye than the three short paragraphs it was. Thoughts welcome. WWB Too (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe try to condense the last paragraph of the section a bit, that comes across as quite positive as well.

• Curious to get your input following the above-described changes. The remaining awards are all third-party verified, some well-known in the industry (the old R&I poll) and some well-known among consumers (Zagat). But if you think it is too glowing still, please make edits as you see fit. WWB Too (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that's ok, there's no reason to remove postive press if it's neutrally worded and sourced to 3rd-party outlets. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business model

• "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store is a chain of wholly owned locations offering sit-down dining and retail.[28] The restaurant is aimed at the family and casual dining market and also markets itself to people traveling on the interstate highways, as the majority of its locations are close to highway exits." This seems a bit redundant with earlier content.

• Done. Specifically, I've removed the mention from "First location and early growth". Indeed it was duplicative, and the point about focusing on interstate highway locations to attract travelers makes more sense in "Business model". WWB Too (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this subsection could possibly be integrated in the history section.

• The company's business model has evolved somewhat over the years, but its strategy of focusing on highway travelers has always been pretty consistent. And by merging this section (as described under "General" above) I think this works as a snapshot of their, well, business model. Also worth noting, my inclusion of this section was based on this guideline.

• Ok, that's fine. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership and sponsorship

• "to offer CD releases and merchandise that are only sold at Cracker Barrel." Maybe stop the sentence after "merchandise" so it doesn't seem like advertising.

• WWB got it. Silverseren^C 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy towards sexual orientation

• "After ten years of bad press and pressure from stockholders the company finally stopped its policy and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation,[43] after demonstrations by gay rights groups.[44]" maybe move the bit about demonstrations to the beginning of the sentence?

• Mark, I take your point about the order of the sentence; your change would definitely improve the clarity. But I also think this sentence and the one before it in this section have some bigger issues. These changes were added by another editor, who felt I had soft-pedaled the controversy. That's not my goal, and I'm open to suggestions, but I think this material would benefit from further review, for reasons of accuracy. For example, the article now says:

Firings reportedly took place on a store-by-store basis in Georgia and other states, but it is unclear how many employees were terminated under the "normal heterosexual values" policy.^[1][2] After ten years of bad press and pressure from stockholders the company finally stopped its policy and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation,^[3] after demonstrations by gay rights groups.^[4]

My thoughts on this:

• The statements incorrectly imply the policy was in force until 2002, whereas sources from 1991 (the year the policy was introduced), and later, state that the policy was stopped earlier. The Nation's Restaurant News source from March 1991 states:

Responding to those charges and to others that were reportedly made by civil-rights activists after the issue became public, Cracker Barrel discontinued what had reportedly been a store-by-store purge of gay staffers.

I think this may be simple confusion; a Gay Today article from 2002 describes the "values" policy change as occurring in the past, whereas the non-discrimination policy was then-recent:

Cracker Barrel later revoked the policy, which it once described as a "well-intentioned overreaction to the perceived values of our customers," but until now, had not expressly protected gay employees from workplace discrimination.

• The statements also confuse the order of events, which, based on all the sources was: policy introduced, protests occur, company stops policy, founder states it was "a mistake", sexual orientation added to Cracker Barrel's official nondiscrimination policy.

• I think there is also editorialization:

After ten years of bad press and pressure from stockholders the company finally stopped its policy …

I think that both sentences should be reworded based on sources including Gay Today, Detroit News and Nation's Restaurant News articles (and cited to these sources) to something along the lines of:

According to news reports, at least 11 employees were fired under the policy on a store-by-store basis from stores in Georgia and other states. After demonstrations by gay rights groups the company stopped its policy and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation.'

Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you here, I like your proposed wording more.

Thanks—I assume this was Mark—glad you agree. However, because it's been a matter of disagreement, I'm disinclined to make these changes myself. I see you've invited some of the editors who had made these changes back to discuss that, which I think is good. WWB Too (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, I figured since you're in agreement and the draft is still in userspace, I've gone ahead and made this change, preserving all citations included in the original. WWB Too (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign donations

• Does the company generally support Republican politicians? This might be good to note.

• I'm not sure about the company's support for Republican politicians; that may well be the case, but I'm not aware of any reporting on the subject beyond this. It's actually my opinion that this particular section doesn't really belong. I'd appreciate input from you and others on this, but here is why I say that:

• Broadly speaking, this was an important event in the history of Tom DeLay, but not of Cracker Barrel.
• This may be WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this information is not included in the articles for any of the other companies mentioned in the news reports: cf. Sears, Westar Energy, Bacardi USA.
• Two of the sources used here do not mention Cracker Barrel at all.
• Tom DeLay is mentioned without explaining how his actions are linked to Cracker Barrel.
• The second and fourth sentences of the section do not refer to Cracker Barrel, but to Tom DeLay.

Since the current language acknowledges the company was cleared of any wrongdoing and was not linked to DeLay's criminal actions, in my opinion seems to fall on the wrong side of WP:UNDUE and isn't appropriate information. But that's how I see it, and I'm not a disinterested party. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on whether it should be kept? WWB Too (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I liked having this section here--mostly because I thought it was pretty interesting actually. Maybe get another opinion on this part. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The end of Tom DeLay's political career certainly was interesting, but Cracker Barrel only had a passive role in it. Even the current wording reflects the fact that Cracker Barrel was named along with others, and then exonerated. There is a lengthy article called Tom DeLay campaign finance trial, where Sears Roebuck is actually mentioned in passing. If Cracker Barrel's walk-on part in the DeLay scandal is worth mentioning anywhere, it's probably there, and even then I don't think it's necessary. I'm afraid this section is simply an exercise in guilt-by-association. Further thoughts welcome. WWB Too (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if no one else insists I guess we could leave that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. This one has gone back and forth in the past, because there have been editors who wanted it included, however I think the guidelines and standard practices are pretty clear. That said, it's probably something worth explaining on the Talk page once this draft is copied back over. I've seen Talk FAQs for situations like this, and when the time comes I'll suggest it. WWB Too (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community involvement

• This section seems pretty positive, but I guess it is relevant and it is hard to come up with negative things to say about giving to charity.
• The second paragraph seems like it would be better suited for the diversity section.

Agreed that the paragraph does seem like it would work better in the "Diversity" section, but I also have a question for you regarding the wording. The paragraph begins:

Further, in an attempt to rebuild its image,^[5] Cracker Barrel has partnered with organizations to provide community programs and scholarships...

As it is, this wording is not quite as clear as it could be. To wit:

1. It does not explain why Cracker Barrel would be rebuilding its image.
2. The source for that assertion is from 2005, but then the paragraph mentions a scholarship with the National Black MBA Association that was offered in 2002, and the scholarship with the Restaurant and Lodging Association was in 2008, so it only seems to apply to one of the partnerships mentioned in the paragraph.

Do you have any suggestion on how the wording could be amended? Also, I wonder if the paragraph is moved into "Diversity" whether the Restaurant and Lodging Association scholarship should be left out of the paragraph and kept in the "Community involvement" section. WWB Too (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on that last part. Will think more about the wording. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are they more or less involved with charity/community than their competitors? Any sources about this?

Diversity

• The first paragraph here reads like it is meant to say "Why Cracker Barrel is pro-diversity". Maybe combine that with the Alleged racial discrimination section?

• Moved under "Corporate overview"; it originally did follow the "Alleged racial discrimination", but this placement was a matter of dispute (CTRL-F "Approximately one third" here. I'm open to further suggestions, of course. WWB Too (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The Tennessean looks to be a clearly reliable source to me, as a Pulitizer nominee. I think there are levels of reliability though, so it would be good to air on the side of caution and find national outlets if you can, but I don't see a problem with the use of The Tennessean any more than using the Seattle Times for an article about Starbucks.
• There are a couple citation needed tags next to positive statements.
• There's a bare url in the references section.
• Reference format isn't consistent.
• Date formats aren't consistent.
• Looks like this link is dead.

Thank you so much for your review! WWB Too and I will get to work on these changes and we'll let you know when we've finished. One thing I would like to note (and i've added a bolded note to the top of this review in the hopes other peer reviewers will heed it) is that WWB Too is unable to edit the article directly, which is why we are working with a draft copy of the article. No worries about your changes, however, I just copied over the latest version of the article a moment ago to include your general improvements. If you have any other personal changes to make, however, please make them to the draft article. Thanks! Silverseren^C 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I actually realized that halfway through my changes... it was getting late, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sourcing:

• Overall this is well sourced, I have a few suggestions though:
• Can you find anything about the nutrition value of their food? The CSPI probably has weighed in, not sure if their newsletter is seen as a reliable source though. I did notice this, maybe worth a mention.

Mark, I found a few articles on Nexis that also mentioned Cracker Barrel announced it was going to remove artificial trans fats, but couldn't find anything (other than the company's 4th quarter earnings call for 2008) that confirmed they had done so. Perhaps the following could be added:

In 2007, Cracker Barrel announced that they intended to remove artificial trans fats from its menu items.^[6][7]

It doesn't seem necessary to me, but what do you think? WWB Too (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that would be a good addition. Kind of shows how they have adapted over time. (nutrition is an interest of mine though, so maybe that's why) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Tweaked slightly to change awkward use of "they" and made it the new final sentence of Food and gift shop. WWB Too (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a quick google scholar search, there seem to be some articles there about discrimination and stockholder stuff. Might be worth a read if you can get access to them. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the stockholder information, I think what the Boston College Law Review discusses (from my understanding of it: whether proposals for the non-discrimination policy should have been included in Cracker Barrel's proxy statement) is too complicated to summarize adequately within the article. It seems to be a wider point of law over which there is continuing debate. Having said that, I think the Review can be used as a source to add that the proposal for the non-discrimination policy was first put forward in 1992. I'd suggest altering the final sentence of Policy toward sexual orientation to read as follows:

From 1992 onward,^[8] the New York City Employees Retirement System, a major shareholder at the time, put forward proposals to add sexual orientation to the company's nondiscrimination policy. In 2002 the company's shareholders voted 58% in favor of the addition.^[3]

I think it would be an improvement; let me know if you agree. WWB Too (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be an improvement. Sometimes with detailed scholarly sources you can pick a couple basic facts around the real complicated stuff to stick in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Fixed my cite (had pub date in doi parameter) and added. WWB Too (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just left notes for a few editors who have recently edited the article asking them to weigh in here if they're interested. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All store locations are open seven days a week for breakfast, lunch and dinner" appears to be slightly more puff than necessary in this article. "—provided for customers' use while they wait for a table or for their food to arrive" also. "In addition to the items that are present in all Cracker Barrel locations" does not appear needed for sure. "The theme of each restaurant is tailored to the local history and environment, designed at the warehouse, and shipped to the new store to be assembled" seems repetitive (see prior sentences in same section) and in the "obvious" category at best as it is worded. " some of whom have regularly eaten at the restaurant for decades" not needed (unless the one meal took that long? <g>) "has also received awards for other aspects of its business, including being " should be changed to "was" as that is what the cite mentions. Likely several hundred words falling into similar categories - but I always think shorter is better. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to check after Mark's invitation and first thing I saw was Collect's comments. Given that the blackout is upon us and I don't think that I can comment in any more detail for the time being, for starters at least, I agree with Collect. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good suggestions, Collect. I've implemented each as follows: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Looking forward to other suggestions of this type. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one big thing that we had yet to do with the draft was to expand the lede as a summary of the article. I've thrown up a rough draft lede in the draft article. Feel free to tweak it for wording and such. The second paragraph could certainly use another sentence of summary if you can figure out one to add in. Silverseren^C 04:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I'd overlooked the matter of the expanded lede. I've actually gone ahead and rewritten it substantially. Perhaps this discussion should move to Peer review, but for the sake of continuity I'll post it here (feel free to copy this over). For ease of comparison between versions:

• Version as of Jan. 19 (old)
• Version as of Jan. 20 (yours)
• Version as of Jan. 21 (mine)

Both versions address the category of restaurant, cuisine, decoration, awards and popularity, 1990s discrimination cases, resolution thereof, community involvement, and charitable activities. My version omits entirely the Tom DeLay information; although it remains in the article, I've also expanded on my reasons for why it doesn't belong at Peer review. Otherwise it's about the same, only more concise; I think details such as scholarship support for African American students and 2002 shareholder vote to add sexual orientation to the companies non-discrimination policy are better left to the article sections. One thing I have added is Cracker Barrel's association with country musicians, which of course speaks to the chain's strong identification with culture of the American South. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One issue I have is that ledes, for the most part, should be written in chronological order of the article. You can mix a bit for subsections, as necessary, but not overall sections. So the issue specifically is that you put a summarizing sentence about the charity information below the controversy information, where it is not in the article. It should be in the paragraph above in the lede, as it is in that section in the article proper. Where you have it in the lede currently makes it seem like you're trying to positively offset the controversy information with that sentence and it comes across as POV. Silverseren^C 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, could you point to a guideline about order of information in lead sections? I've looked at WP:LEDE and WP:BETTER (especially this section) but the suggestion to follow section order isn't one I'm familiar with. I ask in part because the third paragraph actually is in chronological order, just not the same order as the article sections. It is the case that the company has become more involved with minority communities since its 1990s controversies. That said, the final sentence about other charitable activity is mostly a separate topic, though I thought that it flowed naturally from the community involvement. Would this work better if that was moved to the end of the previous paragraph? WWB Too (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's written anywhere, but it's what i've seen in practice, mainly because that's how summaries work for other things too. Like writing an abstract for a scientific report, the abstract must be organized in line with each part of the report that is presented.

I would appreciate it if you moved it to the previous paragraph, yes. The issue is that, while it might flow, it still reads as trying to overshadow the controversy info. Silverseren^C 19:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can see the point. I've moved that sentence up to the middle section. WWB Too (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And might I take a moment to note that gosh darn Tennessean! You have the worst news archive ever! I swear, I cannot find any of their old articles. I can find the pages where the articles used to be, through other links, but they lead to dead pages. I guess they must have changed their systems, but they did it horribly! Silverseren^C 20:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think pretty much everything I came up with has been taken care of. I'll try to keep an eye on the new version when it is posted, I might come up with a few more style nitpicks. Also, I see the article's tag has been "hammered". Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]