Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1951/archive1

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, 13 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1951[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1951/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With 64 of these lists now at WP:FL, here's the latest in the series for your consideration. An interesting fact about this particular year is that literally every single artist to reach number one has been considered important enough to the history of the genre to be inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Your feedback will be most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

Formatting

Consistent all around

Reliability

No issues here. As a side note, AllMusic is being discussed at the RSN (here)—though it looks like most editors agree it is reliable—If you're interested, I'm sure your input would be most welcome, as you seem to have much experience with the site. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Have glanced at a couple, no issues.

Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gave it a thorough read - found nothing. ~ HAL333 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – my only comment is that "Artist(s)" could be simplified to "Artist" in the column headers, as all of the charting acts were solo artists, but if all of your other charts use "Artist", I would keep it the same for consistency. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. All the other lists use "artist(s)", so I'd prefer to keep it for the sake of consistency, hope that's OK! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely, consistency is much more important than that one trivial detail. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB):The table is missing a caption (also mentioned in your other extant nomination).

Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`

--Pres N 14:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on some columns and 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 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. The images are great.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 23:23, 12 April 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.