Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs

[edit]

List of Billboard number-one country songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bet everyone thought when I nominated List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1958 that that would be it for country music at FLC for a while. Well, I fooled you all - here's one more. This is the "capstone" which will (assuming it passes) allow me to nominate the whole lot as a Featured Topic. This one is the overview of all 78 years to date, with each year linking to the relevant list and notes picking out noteworthy things for the year in question. To answer the inevitable question, a handful of years have no notes against them because I couldn't pick out anything especially noteworthy to list. Feedback as ever is welcomed and will be answered as quickly as humanly possible! For info, before I started working on it, it looked like this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments

Congrats on all the work you have put into these lists. You have done a great job. It's been a while since I have last reviewed one of your FLCs so apologies for that. My comments are below:

  • There are some gaps in the "Chart history" table, like with 1984. Is there a reason for this?
  • For the 1980 and 1988 entries, there are a considerable amount of citations to the point that it could be citation overkill. Would it be possible to bundle the citations or do something else to avoid having so many citations in a row?
  • The punctuation in the table is inconsistent. Some sentences have full-stops/periods while others do not. I would opt to give each sentence punctuation to be consistent.
  • For this part, Billboard magazine has published charts, would it be beneficial to change the "charts" link to go to the Billboard charts article?
  • This is not required for the FLC, but I would highly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any future headache when it comes to link rot and death.
  • For this part, to use only airplay data from country music radio stations, I would link country radio since it does have its own article and could be useful for readers who want to learn more about the subject.
  • Link Billboard in the 1944 entry since items are being linked in both the lead and the list itself.
  • For this part, he goes on to achieve a number of posthumous number ones during the year, I would avoid "a number of" and instead say the specific number.
  • While I like the "spell" word choice in this part, for the longest spell at number one by an artist's debut single, I think it might be too informal for Wikipedia.
  • This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. It is about this part, the first former American Idol finalist. Is "former" really necessary? I do not think his status as a finalist was taken away from him. He may have been voted off, but he was not disqualified (a la Corey Clark) so I am not sure "former" is necessary.
  • Unlink American Idol in the 2006 entry as it is already linked in the one for 2005.
  • Reba McEntire is linked multiple times in the chart. Same with Taylor Swift. I have a question about how links are presented in the chart. I would think that they should only be on the first instance. Is that the approach you are taking here? There are other instances of multiple links so I wanted to ask before pointing them out.

I hope this review is helpful. I will read through the prose for the "Chart history" table sometime tomorrow and post further comments then. I have made some minor edits to the lead, which are mostly about adding commas and removing extra spaces. Let me know if you have any questions. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the list one more time to make sure I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - all done, I think. Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. Apologies for missing your note about the years without notes. It makes sense that every year does not have a notable event. Best of luck with this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your support! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews

[edit]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. There are no sortable columns, which is fine in this case. I sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]
  • Support — mostly nothing from me. I've made a few tweaks (mostly changing "which" to "that" because apparently Americans (this article is written in American English, right?) use "that" (and only that) in defining clauses). Pamzeis (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – The reliability of the sourcing looks fine throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. There is one minor formatting item worth pointing out quickly: ref 69 is spelling out Country Music Television, while the other CMT refs are using the abbreviation. These should be made internally consistent. Also, it might be worth considering italicizing Guinness World Records in ref 2, as that is how the formatting is handled in our article on the topic. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on finishing the whole series!

Promoting. --PresN 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_Billboard_number-one_country_songs/archive1&oldid=1055285241"