Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next list of number-one U.S. country songs (known as folk songs at the time - the term country music wasn't in use at the time). With 54 such lists already promoted to FL, for the next one let's jump back to the era of Western swing and singing cowboys....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333([2]) 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure if the comma is necessary after "1944" in At the start of the year, the song in the number one position was "I'm Wastin' My Tears on You" by Tex Ritter, which had been in the top spot since the issue of Billboard dated December 23, 1944, and remained at the top of the chart for four weeks in 1945.
Change non-consecutive to nonconsecutive
You should clarify the sentence As the chart was still in its infancy, the majority of the acts to top the chart in 1945 did so for the first time, including Jimmie Davis, who combined his singing career with serving as Governor of Louisiana. It's not clear that he was governor simultaneously.

As usual, it's a real struggle to find anything. ~ HAL333([3]) 20:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ HAL333([4]) 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
Added a table caption with {{sronly}}. Avoided one redirect in the table (x2).
FLC criteria:
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
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. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
6. It is stable.
Support - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Nothing to say here as formatting follows other FL lists in a very similar fashion. All reliable sources and consistent formatting. Mostly a procedural thing at this point! Pass for source review - Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2020 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.