Template:Did you know nominations/List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones

List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones

 * ... that during the 2000s, 44 singles topped the Billboard Christian Songs chart?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Huites Dam

Created/expanded by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk). Self nom at 02:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)



Article is not long enough. Prose size (text only): 1336 characters (227 words) "readable prose size"   Article created by Toa Nidhiki05 on June 5, 2012. The limited text that is in the article is uncited. The text needs to be longer and fully sourced before it is eligible. --LauraHale (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Length is a legitimate concern and I didn't realize it wasn't quite large enough, but the lede normally doesn't require citations since it summarizes the article. If I were to directly cite it in the lede there would be 44 footnotes beside it, which isn't practical and would look bad to say the least. The content is cited in the article table and follows a similar format to List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones, a featured list.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  03:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the lead text were removed, you'd be in an even worse position. The lead needs to either be consistently cited or not cited.  The prose here just doesn't exist for the article to meet standards.  Beyond that, once you get beyond Number-one singles section, citations completely drop out of the tables.  Again, problematic for passing. --LauraHale (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be in a bad position, it is a list and lists tend to have almost all of their text in the lede. The article is now long enough (expanded to 1862 characters) which leaves the only issue being citations and, quite frankly, the only content in the lede that needs to be sourced is what is not shown later in the article - such as background on the chart and the audience it caters to. The rest of the content is sourced in the article. As for the table, they are not sourced but such a format is evidently acceptable for FL-class articles. Why isn't it suitable for DYK standards?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  03:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 645 characters of prose are cited. Several tables are not cited.  Most of the prose might be a summary but "The first number one single of the 2000s on the chart was Third Day's " is uncited lead text but the several citations there do not support this as being this text.  I also do not know which reference to check for : "44 singles reached the number one position on the Christian Songs chart. " Which one can I check to make sure there is no plagiarism and this statement is accurate?  If some one else wants to pass this based on WP:DYK criteria, they can do so but I do not feel comfortable doing that given an inability to verify the majority of the text. --LauraHale (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ""The first number one single of the 2000s on the chart was Third Day's " is uncited lead text but the several citations there do not support this as being this text." -> the first entry of the table is clearly Third Day's "You Are So Good To Me", and thus does not need a cite, as the first is always the first (please also read WP:LEAD; it is a summary, thus should not contain any duplicated references) ""44 singles reached the number one position on the Christian Songs chart. " Which one can I check to make sure there is no plagiarism and this statement is accurate?" -> what plagiarism please? It is cited from Billboard, which is the official US chart. As Billboard is reliable, it is also accurate. If you count the number of singles you will get 44. Regards.-- GoP  TCN 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that GoP - that's what I've been trying to explain.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all prose after the first paragraph needs further citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Article length is dependent upon a paragraph that is not supported with inline sources per WP:DYK, which means there is an inability to check for plagiarism or that the hook text is factually accurate. Beyond that, there are tables with zero sources that make other information in the article impossible to verify. It might suck that WP:DYK has higher standards than WP:FL (and at times WP:GA) but thems the breaks. :( Does not look like nominator will fix the unsourced paragraph in a timely manner. --LauraHale (talk)
 * I've never seen anything anywhere on this encyclopedia that allows you to reject a DYK hook on the basis that the lede isn't sourced. The lede summarizes the article, not anything else. Accusing me of plagiarism and making up information isn't good either; if you want to make such allegations, prove it. I spent days meticulously going through charts and citing them and I don't appreciate unfounded allegations. Show me policy that says that the lede has to be sourced if you want to refuse this nomination; otherwise, such a decision has no merit because it doesn't fit with policy. And just as a note, everything is cited in the article - the tables aren't, sure, but the content is sourced in the table and FL articles such as List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones use it. If it is good enough format for FL, why the heck isn't it good enough for DYK?
 * BTW, there's no doubt I could cite that content directly. Problem is, I have the citations in the big table and it would result in dozens upon dozens of consecutive inline citations being added into the lede. That isn't preferable nor is it necessary. The lede does not require citations unless the content in the lede is not noted in the article in some way. All the information in the lede is cited in the big table. It's not plagiarism, it's what a lede it.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

/ - I am inclined to approve this article under the spirit of the rules. The 44 number is actually cited by 44 separate citations and counting is not a original research. The other concerns listed above might be relevant for WP:GAN, but DYK does not make any such demands. However, even better would be simply to choose another fact that doesn't rely on counting. I suggest:
 * ALT1 ... that Third Day's song "Cry Out to Jesus" reached number one on Billboard's Christian chart three distinct times?

Interesting, easily verify, and support by (three) inline citations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a much better hook and is much more interesting - I's accept it.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)