Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:08, 23 October 2012 [1].

List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones

[edit]

List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria for Featured List. For background, the article covers the number-one singles on the Billboard Christian Songs chart from the 2000s. The chart was started in mid-2003 and covers airplay data from all formats of contemporary Christian music, although the dominant format of Christian radio is Christian adult contemporary.
The opening paragraph of the lede explains basic chart details such as the launching of the chart, which publication runs the chart, which form of data is used to compile the chart, and which radio formats the chart includes. The second paragraph takes the centerpiece of the list, a large table containing each number-one single and vital information, and summarizes it to note the most important pieces of information.
Structurally, the main table is based on that of the List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones, also a featured list. The table has four sortable columns with vital information as well as a fifth unsortable column that links to a reference to support the information in each the other four columns. Each citation in the table is taken directly from Billboard magazine. Two smaller tables are at the bottom of the article - the artists with the most number-one singles and the songs with the longest runs atop the chart. Both tables are supported by citations from Billboard.
Due to these factors, I feel the list is extremely informative and excellent and it meets the required criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have no comments on how to improve the article. The article is well sourced and images are relevant. I believe that it meets FLC for usefulness, completeness (has every number one from inception until the end of the decade), accuracy, neutrality, style and prose. Royalbroil 03:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment surely all records that top this Billboard chart are notable and, as such, should be linked? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I have linked to all the songs. Although some pages do not exist yet they could reasonably be created and thus are redlinked. Toa Nidhiki05 13:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Two dab links, Joy Williams and Voice of Truth.
  • "group at reaching the top spot, with " remove "at reaching the top spot, "
  • Our article is "Phillips, Craig and Dean".
  • Our article is "Washed by the Water".
  • Artists sort incorrectly. If the artist is just a name, it should sort by surname.
  • "June 28-June 5" en-dash for ranges.
  • "March 31: "Christian Songs (March 31, 2007)" missing a bullet point.
  • You don't need Category:Christian music.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected all of them except for the artists bit - how would that be fixed? Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use the {{sortname}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Reference(s)" shorten to "Ref.(s)"
  • Just a suggestion, but perhaps align references in that table to the center
  • Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does
  • Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
  • Add plainrowheaders to the tables for WP:ACCESS
  • One image doesn't even exist on that page. Remove or replace.
  • Add alt text to the images per WP:ALT; it should briefly explain the contents of the image
  • Cut down on red links if possible

TBrandley 00:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the issues, except for redlinks which should be there as the songs are notable and could be articles at some point. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
Fixed all issues. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've gone over and this list and made some changes here; please revert if I've made things worse.

  • Is there any article that could be linked to to give more info on what "audience impressions" means? For someone outside of the US, this might be confusing. Does it refer to radio plays, or something else entirely?
  • Consider moving the image of MercyMe up to the top so that the article has a lead image. This would also mean that the edit link for the Statistics would not be displaced.
  • Since this is a list of songs, I feel that the row scopes should be really on the songs themselves rather than the artists. Alternatively, if that doesn't appeal to you, you could always add a No. column that lists the procession and succession of the chart (as in this list), and then make the rows in that column the scope.
  • The Weeks column would be better centre-aligned.
  • Of the songs linked to in the list, more than a fifth of them are red. Per 5(a) of the featured list criteria, I think it would be better if they linked to something, even just stubs.
  • Which artist(s) spent the most weeks at number one during the decade?

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no an article on the subject (which is surprising), but one could be made. According to Billboard:

The audience charts cross-reference BDS data with listener information compiled by the Arbitron ratings system to determine the approximate number of audience impressions made for each plays. Thus, a song that plays at 4 a.m. does not count as much as one played at 4 p.m., and a station with a large audience will influence the chart more than either a station in a smaller market or one with a specialized format that attracts less audience

So basically, it just multiplies the spins by the estimated audience that the station has at the time of the spin. I'll specify that here in some way.
Ah, it's a shame that there's no specific article yet. If you can find a way to expand upon what "audience impressions" means then that'd be good, but I wouldn't devote to much time to it, since obviously it's really outside the scope of this list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll make a stub for it at some point if only to give it a place to link to; I've elaborated a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
checkYMoved.
As for 3-5, I'll fix those in a bit. I have to go somewhere but I'll fix as soon as possible. I've been wanting to make articles on each number one song, but I was worried making 9 stubs would be frowned upon. However, since that is not the case I will try and make them.
Casting Crowns did; their six number-one singles spent a total of 62 weeks atop the chart. The information is already in the lede, but I can make a new table for it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry, don't know how I missed that... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, I have added a numeral table as that is the easier of the two solutions; I am going to work on center-aligning the weeks column shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have centered the weeks column. Toa Nidhiki05 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks considerably better, nice work! Great to see all the redlinks gone too. I've made a couple of changes here – I've altered the No. column so that the re-entries don't all jump about when it's sorted, plus a couple of other stylistic choices that may just be personal preference. Please do revert if you don't like the changes. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • The list looks nice but you could add another column in the artist table with total # of weeks spent at #1 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This is what I would recommend doing as well. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the table; I'll get the citations up in a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "with a specialized format that attracts less audience compiled by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems." First, "less" would read better as "a smaller". Second, should "as" be placed before "compiled"?
  • The two By artist tables should have the artist column sort by last name, not first.
  • The pp. in ref 1 should be p., as this is a single-page citation. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_2000s_Christian_Songs_number_ones/archive1&oldid=1140264824"