Talk:Blackhawk (band)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blackhawk (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General thoughts:

• While reading through the article, I made edits to the prose. Most of these edits were to remove redundant phrases or fix up minor grammar concerns. This allowed the paragraphs to be shortended, as long paragraphs was a major concern of mine when I first skimmed the article. Feel free to revert or rephrase.
• The second paragraph of "1994–1995: Blackhawk" has too much text on the critical reviews of the album. I would move these to the album's article, write one sentence about reviewer's comments on the article, and refocus the paragraph on what the band did.
• "Arista Nashville promoted the album through commercials on CMT." I think this is off-topic for this article and can be removed.
• I don't think the reviews in the second paragraph of "1996–1998: Strong Enough and Love & Gravity" are necessary, as the preceding information already describes the album's lack of success.
• "Arista Nashville promoted the album by holding radio contests for listeners to win advance copies of the album in markets where they had determined Blackhawk's music was still popular with listeners." I don't think this is necessary for this article.
• Once again, I don't think the reviews are necessary for "1998–2001: The Sky's the Limit, Greatest Hits, and Spirit Dancer". These can be moved to the album's article.
• "William Ruhlmann thought the album was more "personal" than previous efforts, and also thought the lyrics were inspired by Stephenson's death. His review also highlighted "Days of America" and "Brothers of the Southland" for their lyrics." Not necessary and can be removed.
• "Another track from Spirit Dancer, "Gloryland", was later covered by Keni Thomas in 2005 with backing vocals from Blackhawk." Should this be moved to the 2005 section?
• "Prior to joining Blackhawk, he had toured as a guitarist for Steve Winwood and Neil Young." This can be moved to Crawford's article.
• "Paul and Robbins announced in late 2016 that they would begin working on their first Christmas album" I don't think this is necessary, as it is an announcement of something that happened later. Unless there is information about the three year gap of development, I think this can be removed.
• "(previously of Confederate Railroad)" Not sure if this is needed in this article and can probably be removed as WP:TRIVIA
• ""As a band, Blackhawk merged this sense of songcraft and outlaw swagger in an arena-sized melodic sound that suited the rockin' country of the '90s."" I don't think this quote is necessary and can be removed.
• The "Musical style" section falls a lot into the "X says Y" pattern. I think this can be rewritten to remove naming all the critics and summarising their observations. If multiple critics state the same information, their opinions can be merged with multiple inline citations used.
• I also think the "Musical style" section is disorganised. The sound of the band is spread over the first and second paragraph, while the second paragraph talks about Stephenson's voice and lyrics, which are two different topics. I would suggest reworking this section into paragraphs with one clear topic each. Perhaps a topic for sound and music and one for lyrics.
• No image concerns, but recommend that images use upright instead of px per MOS:UPRIGHT

Once the above are addressed, I'll do a source check. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on this over the next couple days. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Most GA- and FA-class articles feature passages quoting or paraphrasing reviews per album. Compare the FA-class Vince Gill, where nearly every album's section has at least one critical review. In regards to the first album, I tried to summarize the reviews a bit more.
• I think the passages on how Arista promoted the album are relevant, as they give further context on the album. Again, this seems congruent with most other GA-class articles, particularly if the means of promotion are unusual in nature (e.g., the Buffalo Club).
• I'm also fine with the Christmas album being brought up, as it is mentioned in their discography and it would look weird if it weren't mentioned in the body. I couldn't find any reason why it took three years to release, though.
• I also think the "previously of Confederate Railroad" bit is relevant, as Dormire does not have his own article and the reader can know that the name they see in another article is indeed the same person.
• I tried to smooth out the "musical styles" a bit more.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Responses below:

• This is an article about the band, not the albums. While a sentence about critical reviews of the album are appropriate, more than one sentence is excessive.
• For how Arista promoted the album: this is an article about the band, not about the albums. I would consider this WP:COATRACK and off-topic.
• I think if information about when they started working on the Christmas album is included in the article, there should be information about its development or why it took three years for it to be developed. If this information isn't in the article, then I am not sure if the text is notable enough to be in the article.
• Confederate Railroad can stay in the article, but I still don't think its necessary.

Unfortunately, I do not have an extended amount of time right now to do the source check, so I will try to do it later (and keep this open in a tab to remind me.) Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: I moved some content to the albums' articles. Think I got your other issues too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review:

• Recommend using IA bot to archive sources.
• Per MOS:FNNR, usually explanatory notes are before the footnotes.
• No concerns with the quality of the sources.
• Sources checked with no concerns: 5, 15, 20, 25, 31, 38, 45
• Ref 24: Could not verify: "Due to a change in ownership at Arista Nashville, the band was dropped from that label"
• Ref 30: Could not verify: "intended to lead off their first Rust album For the Sake of the Song." The source says the next album will be called Voices

• Ref 39: Could not verify: "All members of Blackhawk and their touring band also tour as Outlaws."
• Earwig does not detect any plagiarism concerns.

@TenPoundHammer: That's the end of the source check. Once these are addressed the article should be good to go. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Think I addressed all sourcing issues. I used Outlaws' "About Us" page on their website, which does list all six current members. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass. All concerns addressed and resolved. I am sorry that it took so long for an editor to review the article. Some notes if this is going to continue to FAC:

• Consider if the quotes about the albums are needed in this article, or if they are off-topic.
• Consider if statements are relevant to the band, or are just WP:COATRACK and WP:TRIVIA because the person does not have an article of their own.
• WP:RECEPTION has great ideas on how to avoid the "X says Y" pattern that can be seen in the latter half of the "Musical style" section.

Congratulations. Z1720 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)