Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose and the comprehensiveness of the lead. …

Regards, Efe (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy:
  • Prose suggestions
  • "hip hop duo Outkast's "Hey Ya!" began its peak position in 2003, and is thus excluded." Why is it excluded? And it what way is it excluded? I understand the methodology is to include the songs which first hit the #1 spot in 2004 but why is a continuation at the top spot not counted? Is this to do with Billboard's way of assessment?
  • Yes. That's how they count the number of singles that chart in a particular year. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "13 acts achieved each a first US number-one single" sounds a little awkward. Why not try something like "In 2004, 13 acts achieved their first US number-one single"?
  • I'm still confused with this. It would also sound that they're one achieving also one number-one single. Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just switch it to "13 acts each achieved...", that flows more naturally. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seven collaborations singles went number one". It's collaboration singles surely?
    • "Usher had four number-one singles that appeared in the 2003 issues". Did you mean 2004?
  • Oops. Corrected. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Usher is the most-successful act". I think was is better, considering the rest of the article's tense usage.
  • I think it should be is because it doesn't change. Usher is forever that year's most successful act. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the meaning is clear and I think "is" and "was" equate to the same thing here (2004 has finished and it's obvious that no one superseded or will supersede him as the most successful act). However, the following sentence's use of "he had" and "topped" causes a little awkwardness in the tense. Feel free to disagree though... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Usher had 28 weeks on top, the most weeks achieved ever by an act". Maybe this would sound better: Usher had 28 weeks at the top – more weeks than any other artist has achieved in a calendar year.
  • I am worried with the use of dashes. --Efe (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Don't fear the dashes! They are there to help you clarify the meaning and improve readability—there are various ways in which they improve a sentence. However, in this case you could use a semi colon (;) or comma and it works the same. I'm not a punctuation Nazi. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma is better. Per MoS, we use em dashes sparingly. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS also says you should never use "--" yet you've got it as part of your signature. The MoS says a lot of things. If an emdash works then it works. English is, by nature, very flexible in its usage. Also, the usage of English is—by its very nature—flexible. Don't be afraid to write things in your own style, as long as you don't go dash crazy! Remember: uniformity does not guarantee quality. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight. My rule is when its clear with comma, don't use dashes. Hehe. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The feat also broken the record by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra, whose records monopolized the top spot of Record Buying Guide—a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s—for 26 consecutive weeks in 1940."
To prevent difficulties that the clausal phrase creates, try:
  • The feat also broke a record set by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra; in 1940 their records spent 26 consecutive weeks at the top spot of Record Buying Guide—a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s.
  • "The feat also broke the record set by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra; in 1940, their records spent 26 consecutive weeks at the top spot of Record Buying Guide, a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s." I removed the emdash. --Efe (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the Billboard Hot 100, he is the first ever artist to top the chart that long, over half a year, in a calendar year." Does this mean anything different from the sentence which starts "Overall,"? Is there a half year record too? If so, who had this record previously?
  • Did some changes there. --Efe (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info

  • Perhaps note that Fantasia's "I Believe" and Ciara's "Goodies" were their debut singles.
  • We'll add that later. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment about genre is surely relevant: the fact that every number one single was either R&B or Rap is interesting (though I'm not sure what that Fantasia single was like, being from across the pond...)
  • If I can find sources. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, sourcing could be a problem. Give it some thought though because historically the genres' dominance in this period will be quite noteworthy. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a minor note (Em perhaps... ho ho ho), why are the retrieval dates in the references in international style (day first)? I think that US style (month first) or ISO (YYYY/MM/DD) would be more appropriate.
  • That's how the template are formatted. The important is the consistency throughout the article. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked the techies why the template works this way. Awaiting a response but it's largely unimportant in terms of the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why not add a couple more images to fill up that white space on the right? I think these pictures of Snoop and Pharrell will do just fine. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid, again. We only use images if the performance of their singles were very notable. I'll try to look for another one or two images, but maybe not them. --Efe (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mind if I move this article to start "List of..."? Consensus at WP Record Charts leans this direction, and all promoted FLs and current FLCs follow this format. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. --Efe (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR now closed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2004_(U.S.)/archive1&oldid=268609688"