Talk:Diamond Rio/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. 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)