They concentrate most of their book on describing the Deuteronomist history, so while Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are covered in depth, they don't say much about the rest of the Old Testament. Of course these are the primary historical books. (Chronicles is basically a re-hash of Kings, written from a post-exilic perspective.)
According to some, the thesis of this book is not widely accepted among archaeologists. Since I am not an archeologist and I don't know anybody who is, I am having a hard time verifying that claim. Is this a claim put out by those who believe in inerrancy only or is their enough evidence that it is supported by a wider group? Does anybody have any good books on the subject that they can recommend?