Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)/archive1

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am sure there are still glitches to fix. I am looking forward to passing this to WP:FLC soon. Thank you,

Regards, Efe (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

The introduction needs a lot of rewriting. At present it is muddled, jargonistic and, in places, ungrammatical. It needs to be written in a form that can be generally understood, not just by those who follow charts. Here are a few specific points:-

• "Data" is a Latin plural, so "date is compiled" is wrong. Since "data are complied" sounds artificial, I suggest you replace data with "information".

• I am wondering why this slipped off the eyes of the reviewers. But anyway, I changed is to are, that was kind of offensive grammar of mine. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "in 52 issue dates": issues of what? Please clarify.

• Changed to "in 52 issues of the magazine". --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence needs significant re-writing: Although 12 singles charted atop the chart in the inclusive issue dates, rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" began its stretch at number one in 2002, thus excluded.. "charted atop the chart" is clumsy; "in the inclusive issue dates" appears to mean, simply, "in 2003", and the final phrase needs to be expressed in proper grammatical form, "...and is thus excluded"

• Indeed clumsy. Tighten. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• First sentence of following paragraph is also problematic. I think "Throughout the year" should be "During the year"; there is also an unnecessary "had", and it should be "nine acts which", rather than who. The sentence could, however, be simplified to: "During the year, nine acts achieved first US number-one singles..."

• Is this fine "nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single"? --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another sentence needing attention is: Knowles, rapper 50 Cent and dancehall artist Sean Paul had two entries in 2008.... I assume you mean they each had two entries in 2008. But as this article is about the 2003 list, the reference to 2008 should be given in the future, e.g. "...would each have two entries..." etc

• Fixed. Its 2003, not 2008. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reference to "this year's chart". What year? If 2003, say so.

• I've been repeating 2003 throughout. Is it clumsy phrasing? --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "...becoming the longest-running number one single..." As this phrase refers to two separate number ones, it should be "singles"

• Oops, yah. --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "three chart run of which were in 2003" - ungrammatical, can't work out what it means.

• Testing: "three weeks of which were in 2003". --Efe (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope these examples are sufficient to indicate the level of attention that needs to be given to the prose before it can reached featured standard. The list itself looks OK. I hope you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)