Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)/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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [1].

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)[edit]

I am listing this here at FLC because I feel it meets the criteria, having been edited extensively and peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • Published by Billboard magazine, the data are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, and airplays. - the data are compiled isn't right, it should be "the data is compiled"
  • I'm sorry, you are right.--TRUCO 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Knowles and 50 Cent dominated this year's chart. 50 Cent's first number-one single "In da Club" and Knowles' second number-one single "Baby Boy" both topped the Hot 100 for nine straight weeks, becoming the longest-running number-one singles of 2003. - dominated is in a way a point-of-view, reword. In addition, the first period can be changed into a colon
  • Do you have any suggestion what word to replace? Added column. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something along the lines of ..had the longest charting singles...--TRUCO 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised the line. --Efe (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven collaboration singles topped the chart in 2003, setting a record for most number-one collaborations in a calendar year since the onset of rock era in 1955; - "the" needs to be added before rock era
  • With the combined chart run of "Get Busy" and "Baby Boy", the latter in which he is featured, Sean Paul became the most successful Jamaican-born artist in terms of chart performance in Hot 100. - add "the" before Hot 100
  • During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as lead artist or featured guest. - I don't know whether this is an English variation or not, but the word "a" should be added before "lead artists" and before "featured guest"
  • Added only one a. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink the wikilinks in the image captions, its WP:OVERLINK
  • I think its important to provide links to captions. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its fine.--TRUCO 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the amount of white space, I would add a couple more images.
  • Will add two. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2] is not a reliable website--TRUCO 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author is reliable. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How reliable is Bill Lamb? Because the publisher About.com has been found unreliable.--TRUCO 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a better source, and I would be happy to remove About.com if you can provide me a link where this site is being discussed, so that I'll stop using the site should it be proven unreliable. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would talk to User:Ealdgyth because they specialize in proving sources reliable, and she is the one who checks them at WP:FAC. For now I would remove it, and the other source should cover for it.--TRUCO 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing about About.com is that anyone can write for it and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight; the reliabilty of individual pages depends on whether the author of that article meets WP:SPS as an expert.
OK, I'll remove it. Anyway, I have two better sources. --Efe (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Why terms linked in the caption, when they are already linked in the lead and the table?
  • I see no problem with it. Its just that they are linked because they're in the lead. And it has been a sort of guideline to have links in the table. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with the linking in the lead or table. I don't see why they are necessary in the captions either. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same query above. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were 11 singles that topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine" No comma after "chart".
  • Is it superfluous? I think it has sense? --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a grammar thing. Don't put the comma after the main clause when a dependent clause follows. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I have checked my guide. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest."-->During the year, nine acts achieved a first US number-one single as a lead artist or featured guest.
  • Used each for clarity, and per PR. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either as lead artist or featured guest." Why is this phrase repeated at the end of the second paragraph?
  • Because Sean Paul is only a featured guest in "Baby Boy". --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "longer than any single to have topped this year"-->longer than any single to top that year
  • "to have topped", IMO, is a better phrasing. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hip hop duo"-->Hip-hop duo
  • hip-hop and hip hop are acceptable. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three weeks of which "
  • For clarity again? Unless its redundant. I would be happy to remove it. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is redundant. Look at the larger context: "nine consecutive weeks, three weeks of which" What else could you be talking about? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, removed. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at number one combining "In the Club" and "21 Questions"."-->at number one with "In the Club" and "21 Questions".
  • Clarity again. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have topped the chart"-->to top the chart
  • "which charted for eight straight weeks in summer" Don't use seasons; use months instead.

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed as suggested. But I see no problem with it, actually. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Only pending issue is the about.com thing above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note An IP editor has left a comment on the article article's talk page that states the images squeeze the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the screen resolution of his computer. --Efe (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With regard to the references. The publisher date goes "year-month-date", but the retrieve date goes "date-month-year". — R2 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how the template is formatted, I think. --Efe (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — R2 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All good. — R2 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is it alright if we move the list to "List of..." as a couple other lists have been moved now? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been agreed in a discussion on the project's page. Go ahead and thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Letting you know here that I will move your other lists too so that the precedent is clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually raised a discussion at the project's talk page for others to generate a guide in the moving of these lists. --Efe (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left comments over there; if nobody raises a concern I will probably move the other pages by the end of the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2003_(United_States)/archive1&oldid=1138482463"