Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1959/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) 00:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1959[edit]

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1959 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the lists of US country number one songs from 2000-2006 inclusive having either been promoted or gained multiple supports, I bet you thought 2007 was coming next didn't you? Well instead I thought I would throw you a curveball and bring to FLC some classics from the 1950s. Trivia note: Faron Young, listed herein, was the first singer I ever saw in concert. I got dragged along when my parents went to see him at the Winter Gardens in Margate when I was about 5....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the text and the format is consistent with the other articles, but IMHO I just don't see this as surpassing criterion 3b. It's 11 songs with not a lot of supplementary information beyond rewording some contents into prose. Why can't these articles be done as decades like the FLs List of Billboard Hot Rap Songs number-one songs of the 2010s, List of NME number-one singles of the 1960s, and several others? It's very easy to merge the tables, and then there could be a more substantive lead. I know a number of the Billboard lists have articles for every year already, but for this reason I respectfully oppose. Reywas92Talk 22:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough, guess there isn't much I can do to address the above other than to point out that there are already 30 FLs for number one songs/albums by year, far more than there are by decade..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Make sure songs are sorted by definite articles "The, A, etc." per WP:Sorting
  • "The Browns" → "the Browns" when mid-sentence per MOS:THEMUSIC
  • "At the time of his death in 2013 he had" → comma after 2013
  • "11" → "eleven" (you spell it out later in the lead; consistency)

Everything else looks good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – All good for me. Looking forward to all your future lists. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ten items is the traditional threshold for satisfying criterion 3b, and the level of information and detail provided here could not be replicated in large and clunky decade-by-decade articles. Ten of these articles in one page would be a WP:SIZE violation. The current FLC for Official Classical Singles Chart is a good example of where one article works well, where there are only 2 (plus a few extra weeks on either side) years to cover, this is an example of where it would not with ten full years, and this being one of the sparser years in terms of number of songs needed to be included. The prose reads fine, the only things I saw to do were some hyphen errors, which were easier to fix than to list here. Courcelles (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " published by Billboard magazine." since ...?
  • "more charting singles " in the Hot Country chart only?
  • "at number one, Johnny Horton returned to the top spot with "The Battle of New Orleans", which spent ten weeks at number one" mildly repetitive, "number one" used twice in a single sentence.
  • "(pictured in 2002) " I normally put this notes in italics.
  • "White Lightning" is piped to a redirect.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted, hopefully to your satisfaction..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. As noted above, the general line in the sand is 10 items for a standalone list, barring obvious reasons to keep a series of lists distinct; this passes that line. --PresN 20:46, 6 April 2018 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Hot_C%26W_Sides_number_ones_of_1959/archive1&oldid=835172297"