Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (U.S.)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 Matthewedwards 05:45, 28 February 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I think it meets the criteria. Thanks, Efe (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I participated in the article's peer review, and believe it to be of FL standards. -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"In 2007, there were 17 singles that topped the chart." Redundant.
- Removed including "that" Leaving it would make the sentence ungrammatical. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I meant :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Three number-one singles tied for the longest run on the chart this year" "this" is too strong a back reference, say "2007" or "that".
- "That" is rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about "2007"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "weeks, the last of these was non-consecutive." Should be a semicolon, not a comma.
- A misuse of semicolon. Should be comma. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we have a comma splice here. It needs to be reworded or a semicolon needs to be added. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no comma splice here because "the last of these was non-consecutive" is not an independent clause. Do you have any suggestion or better phrasing? Perhaps that would settle it. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like an independent clause to me (subject is "The last of these", predicate is "was consecutive"). Anyway, I will try to think of a rephrasing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"previous calendar year" Redundant, unless there is another type of year that could be referred to here.
- Removed. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"one for five straight weeks."-->one for five consecutive weeks. better word choice
- The same consecutive and straight. I use both to make the prose better. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Irreplaceable" is the best-performing single of the calendar year, topping the Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007." I am unsure of the logical connection of these two phrases. Is the song the best-performing because it topped the Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007, or was it already known as the best, and just happened to top the list?
- No. Its the best-performing single of this year although it started its peak position in the preceding year. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "for its jump from 64th to first place" Keep the numbers in the ordinals consistent.
- They're consistent: 64th and 1st, unless I am missing something. Someone revised it. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now it is "first". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is should be in words, IMO. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks awkward though. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But MOS states it should be in words, unless I missed some. --Efe (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"making it the biggest leap in this year."-->the largest leap of that year.
- Changed to "of 2007". --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"has been credited by the music press as 2007's Song of the Summer.[6][7][8]" By the music press in general, or a specific agency/magazine/institution?
- I have to generalize it. We don't want to name them all. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Young Joc"-->Yung Joc.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 19 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.