# Talk:Diamond Rio

We really need a better image of the group. The current image only shows three of the group members. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just gave this article a serious overhaul. Feel free to let me know what y'all think of it. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. It looks like an actual article now. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Meetinthemiddle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox...quite a few fields not filled in...origin, etc. Check the template's page and see if there's anything you can add to it
"Since its foundation..." - wlink the instruments in this section
"Due to a series of health issues" - for everyone in the band? Or else, who was sick?
"has also recorded seven studio albums" - also isn't necessary
Ref 3: format=html isn't necessary as this is assumed
"In 1993, Diamond Rio also contributed..." - unsourced paragraph :(
"Also in 1994" - this could read a bit better..."later in 1994" perhaps? (if it was later)
"This cover, which peaked at #48 on the country charts, also received a music video; the video won a Video of the Year award from the television network CMT." - needs ref
Some of these sections are really short...is there no more information on how the album was produced, what happened outside of recording...nothing?? If not, just merge some sections...these regular headers looks bad
"the only exception is on the band's later albums" - this could be more than a minor exception...best to say which ones
"and "One More Day" -- songs which" - change to an en dash (–)
Biographies section should be renamed to "Side projects", I'd say
Looking mostly good. Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There was also a hard rock band called Diamond REO who apparently had the same idea for their name.  98.246.183.207 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has benn unlisted as a Good Article.  However; there are no suggestions for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Tomsv 98 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diamond Rio. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090512022409/http://www.vintageguitar.com:80/features/artists/details.asp?AID=2101 to http://www.vintageguitar.com/features/artists/details.asp?AID=2101
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930032445/http://www.cmt.com/artists/news/1451674/20020105/bentley_stephanie.jhtml to http://www.cmt.com/artists/news/1451674/20020105/bentley_stephanie.jhtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I was happening by this nice article and saw that its use of the citation templates isn't being done properly and is causing Harvard reference errors. I'd like to help. If you'd like, you can enable a tool that shows where the errors are; I have made good use of this tool: Edit your own common.js and add the line: "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); // User:Ucucha/HarvErrors". You can check out the tool's documentation. I'd be happy to go over an example error from the article and explain how to correct it. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
It actually looks like there's only two problems. The first causes a few dozen errors, but it's still only one problem: The Roland (2009) {{sfn}} inline citations are not properly referring to its reference in the Sources section. The second is similar: No effort was made to make the Whitburn (2008) inline citations refer to its reference in the Sources section. When I say that they should "refer to its reference", I mean the goal is to allow the reader click on the citation and it takes them straight to the reference, highlighting it for them. I'll go ahead and fix these and then you can see exactly how to do it yourself next time. It's actually kind of cool when it works. Harvard references are great, especially for multiple inline citations that need to refer to a single reference. Here is an example of an article I once wrote that does it, and here is an example article I once fixed for someone that does it. Note: Of course none of this is a GA requirement, but it's good to get it actually working. I fixed a few other common errors while I was here. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diamond Rio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 21:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Beginnings
1st paragraph: No occurrence of facts "Grizzly River Boys" and "members disliking the original name" in cited source (Mattoon Journal Gazette). Is this information instead in one of the two books of the bibliography?
It's mentioned in the Beautiful Mess book. I can't find the book right now but I'll fix this. ETA: Fixed via Google Books.
Good.
1st paragraph: No occurrence of fact "Star Search" in cited source (Allmusic: Ty Herndon biography).
Fixed.
Good.
1st paragraph: Fact "Young University's Young Ambassadors" wrong page number in reference to Country Music: The Encyclopedia; it is p.126 (here).
Well, are you going to fix this? I did all the research, gave you the link, everything.
Fixed, I missed this point in the last go-round.
Looks good.
2nd paragraph: Why is "quit working at Opryland" mentioned with "Music Row completely discredited"; these two places/happenings are not the same; first is NE of Nashville second is SW of Nashville.
"Music Row" is a synecdoche for Nashville brass. They're saying that other people in the Nashville music community had no respect for them as a theme park attraction. ETA: Reworded to clarify.
Good.
3rd paragraph: Check spelling of artist "Alan LaBeouf". Should it instead be "Alan LeBeouf"? See here, but then perhaps the correct spelling may be "Alan LaBeouf". See here. There is Baillie & the Boys. Your thoughts?
Fixed.
Good. Even if reliable sources for both spellings exist, I'm glad you went with the spelling that is the same as the other Wikipedia article.
4th paragraph: Please do a spot check for me of Whitburn 2008, p. 51; ensure it verifies all facts stated from first sentence of this paragraph through the word "Blackhawk".
Fixed.
Good.
5th paragraph: Consider occasionally opening or closing a paragraph with a summary sentence. Consider following "conducted business under that name" with a closing summary sentence that simultaneously emphasizes that the band has indeed finalized their name and they have indeed signed their first record deal. (An informative quote from the source is "We had a certain following as the Tennessee River Boys, though, and so we decided to stay with that until we had a record deal.") Consider adding to "Shortly after the band received its record deal", following it with another phrase; the two phrases then making an opening summary sentence that sets the stage for the misfortune that is about to set in. For example, something like, "Shortly after the band received its record deal, it endured a number of misfortunes." (The "came down with health problems" would get a date and then be part of a next sentence.)
Will work on most of the copy editing as you mentioned. ETA: Done.
I didn't think it was "shortly after signing a record deal", I thought it was "when" they signed their record deal. Please double check. Besides, you just created redundancy; you are now saying "shortly after" and then the next sentence: "Shortly after". Come on.
I couldn't find a way to make it the way you wanted, so I pretty much changed it back to how it was before.
That's fine; you tried; you got that new opening sentence of the next paragraph in, which looks a lot better.
2007–present New record label and The Reason
Should section title instead be: 2007–present: New record label, The Reason, and I Made It.
Why no mention of album 16 Biggest Hits (I learned of it from Diamond Rio discography).
16 Biggest Hits is a budget line compilation that contains no new material, so I felt no reason to mention it.
Okay.
Perhaps I Made It should be a red link (I Made It).
I could find no third party reviews or other material on which to build an article; the album isn't even listed on Allmusic, so I doubt it will ever be notable enough for an article.
Truly? Their latest album is the only album of theirs that is not notable? All their others have an article. I believe you, but you see what I mean: it seems incredible.
It's happened before. Sometimes artists have small label releases that get no attention as well, such as most of Collin Raye's recent releases.
No occurrence of fact "Rio Hot Records" in cited source (Albilene Reporter-News).
I see you addressed this.
Awards
So, the Academy of Country Music awarded the band Top Vocal Group for 1991 and 1992. Did the Academy continue to give them that same award in subsequent years, or was it the Country Music Association giving them a different award in those later years? Regarding the Top Vocal Group award, the article says it was "an award they would receive again in 1993, 1994, and 1997". Then later, the article says a different group, the Country Music Association, awarded the band a different award, the Vocal Group of the Year, in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1997 (as also mentioned in the lead).
Maybe I'm being dense but I'm not seeing the confusion here.
You're right, after I double-checked, I don't see any problem either.
Don't say "3 nominations", say "three nominations".
I'm actually pretty upset that you added that huge awards table. I think it looks terrible; I much preferred the format of the article before you adding this enormous thing. Would you consider removing it and placing it into the discography article instead, an article that is already nothing but tables? Then restoring the bullet list that was there before? I can't force you because this is nothing to do with GA criteria.
Fixed the "3", and I may move the table to a subpage if you feel it's long enough. I just wanted to get all the awards in, and I will add any subsequent ones since the current source only goes up to 2006.
Good. Yes, I'm glad you're getting a nice, orderly array of data; it's a good thing for the encyclopedia. I much prefer prose and the occasional ordered lists over tables, myself, and the article looked so nice before, so if you decide the discography article would be better served moving this table over there, then that wouldn't hurt my feelings.
Lead
Consider mentioning that the founding members were a trio and that all three ultimately left the band. If so, this should probably be in the article body as well (something like, "The last founding member left the band when ...").
I see you addressed this. The new phrase "who later became a solo artist" needs a little work, as the reader initially thinks this phrase is referring to all three founding members. Perhaps instead something like, "an artist who became a notable for his solo career." I see you have not yet taken my suggestion to explicitly point out (in the article body) the exact moment when the last founding member left the band, which I truly believe is a notable moment. I am assuming is explicitly stated as such by reliable sources; if not, I don't think it is original research to identify Davenport as a founding member in the sentence when he—the last one—leaves the band.
I added "the last of whom" to the intro to clarify Herndon's solo career, and pointed out the exact moment of Davenport's departure more clearly.
Looks better. An improvement.
Perhaps mention lead vocalist Roe first in the list.
I see you addressed this.
Avoid repeating the title "Meet in the Middle".
I see you addressed this.
As the Awards section says the band was finally awarded a Grammy in 2011, shouldn't that win be mentioned in the lead?
I see you addressed this. However, you addressed it in the wrong place. You added a new sentence "The band has also won multiple awards ..." into the second lead paragraph—before the third lead paragraph that already talks about awards. Jeez. Please delete it and start again in the third lead paragraph.
Fixed. This was a copy editing error on my part.
Personnel
What is the order of these two lists? In the Former members list, I wonder if it would be fitting to be broken into two lists separated by a blank line: the founding members and other former members.
I didn't get an answer to my question of "what is the order?" They don't seem to be alphabetical. Is it in order of appearance into the band?
That does appear to be correct, the band members are in chronological order of joining (current) or departure (former).
Exceptionally good work. Prhartcom (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I somehow didn't see this nomination pop up even though the article's on my watchlist. I'll get to a lot of the things you mentioned. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
ETA: Fixed most if not all of your
Of my ...?
It's okay, I get your meaning. First of all, it's a pleasure to work with you, Ten Pound Hammer, as I've seen you around for years and rightly assumed your work would be exceptional. I picked this article just to work with you. I see that you are mostly the sole author of this article; it has been your baby for many years now. You even reassessed it to remove it's GA status just so that you could improve it and legitimately earn its GA status again. All that appeals to me. I was rather hoping this would be my first "immediate pass", a GAN that actually has nothing whatsoever wrong with it from the first moment I look at it. It is practically that, as you noticed I found nothing wrong with large swaths of the article (not coincidentally, I believe those the oldest, most refined sections). I almost never go entire sections with no comment. So, congrats on the exceptional work!
Do you think you fully understand Harvard referencing now and won't be making any Harvard reference mistakes anymore? Did you click on the harv refs and see how well it works, even with multiple citations pointing to the same ref? (Before, clicking did nothing; it was broken.) I am happy to answer any questions if you'd like. Did you install that tool I was telling you about?
I just have the few remaining issues above. Ping me when you're done. Prhartcom (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: I don't deal with harv referencing often so I didn't look much into it, but I think I got it now. Have I gotten everything you've noted now? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, well done. Congrats on another GA! Prhartcom (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)