From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBrooks & Dunn has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2012 Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2012 Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Fixed the singles section

A lot of the singles were out of order, had incorrect peaks (e. g. #2 for "Lost And Found", which was actually a #6), etc. I went back and fixed the singles list. (And as a bonus, all of the songs - with the possible exception of the Christmas songs - are in chronological order, too.) 68.188.191.9 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

anybody know the significance of "Tulsa City Limits"? Is this a club? If it means nothing but the geographic location someone please take it out... A. J. A. DeWitt 21:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reverting Question

I just reverted what I thought was vandalism to the page...but if not, please revert. Thanks!-- Violin G irl ♪ 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Content of article

The article seems to be very light on information about Brooks and Dunn as artists, both as individuals and as a duo, and heavy on inconsequentials. Is it really necessary to have all of the songs from their albums listed? Willbyr 19:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply


Okay, I've tried to add somewhat to it based on my limited knowledge of Wikipedia expectations and only casual-fan knowledge of Brooks & Dunn. I also agree that the list of all the songs from all their back catalog is ridiculous. I feel slightly bad about removing someone's hardwork, but if someone can't justify it (with reference to other artist pages which, as far as I can see, do NOT do this), then I shall be forced to take the knife to it! Hope I improved it.

  • It looks better with the added info. I think that only the songs which were released as singles should be noted from their albums. Willbyr 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since the album contents have been edited down to only the songs released to radio then shouldn't the Singles section be removed since it is now basically repeating what is already listed. I myself thought that the listings of all the songs from the albums was fine, no matter if other artists wiki's don't do it, but since they are now edited out the singles section really isn't necessary.


August 15, 2006: Added 2006 Academy of Country Music Awards to Awards list.

Split

Although I'm the fool user who merged Kix' and Ronnie's pages to this one in the first place, I would like to know: Does anyone think that their pages should be split back off again? Both Kix and Ronnie seem to have enough standalone notability to warrant separate articles, in my opinion -- especially now that the former is a nationally syndicated radio host. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. Jjdon ( talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Expand

There's not nearly enough info on their career. Each album should have its own section, regarding the singles, critical reception, etc. Also, there aren't nearly enough sources. Come on, I'm not the only one who can write a country music GA here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sourcedump

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) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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) reply

My preliminary review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Includes both negative and positive reception from critics.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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.
  7. 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) reply

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) reply

External links modified

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Brooks_%26_Dunn&oldid=1206447840"