# Talk:Brooks & Dunn

Wow, no discussion in 2 years? This article sure has gathered a lot of dust. Also, sourcedump for later expansion: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22brooks+%26+dunn%22+%22billboard%22&btnG=Search+Books#q=%22brooks+%26+dunn%22+%22billboard%22&hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&ei=KSm1TLeoE4TdnAfW-8Vq&start=20&sa=N&fp=56a5412bf1193579 Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Another source: http://books.google.com/books?id=0UlJLX2dL9kC&pg=PA92&dq=%22lost+and+found%22+%22kix+brooks%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d76oT6GzMYfZgAf21pDpAQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22lost%20and%20found%22%20%22kix%20brooks%22&f=false Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brooks & Dunn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
My preliminary review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The prose has no issues as far as meeting the good article criteria, but the lede should contain some summary of critical reception towards the duo. When you satisfy the 3a concern that should also probably get a brief mention.
 Done
On this point, what I was getting at was wanting to see some overview of what critics think of the group's music i.e. what they like and what they don't like. I see the reviews have some common themes on the negative and positive sides that could be summed up pretty easily.
Expanded further.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I have sourced a few statements, and I see you sourced an issue I pointed out before I could comment.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I see that a section about their tours was removed. While, the reason for its removal was legitimate I think the article is lacking when it comes to covering their concert performances, and the political usage of their music that was noted in that section is also something worthy of noting in the article.
 Done I have combined most of the touring information into the sections on each album. Most of the political usage was of "Only in America", so I merged that to the section on Steers & Striples.
This satisfies my concerns on the broadness of the article's coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Includes both negative and positive reception from critics.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
There was some question about the captions used for images of the artists during the PR and I would like to see that concern addressed.
 Done I couldn't figure out where or when the other two photos were taken, so I removed them.
I would like to see something in the body of the article. Since they have had several notable collaborations with Reba and toured with her you could perhaps put up a free image of her with a caption noting this fact briefly. A fair-use audio clip would also be a nice way to make up for the lack of images in the body.
Added a couple more images. I found another concert picture on Flickr.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Most of the issues are really small and could be fixed quickly, I think. The information about their concert performances might be a little more consuming, but I imagine these will also take very little time to address so I will put the final review on hold.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

On the oustanding issues the lede now has a good summary of the article's salient points, the article covers the major aspects of the subject, and there are now a number of good images in the article with appropriate captions. Since I see no other issues that need addressing per the good article criteria I believe this article is now fit for GA status.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brooks & Dunn. 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/20110612144335/http://www.yamaha.com/publications/allaccess/summer2001/02cook.htm to http://www.yamaha.com/publications/allaccess/summer2001/02cook.htm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)