Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)


 * 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 08:17, 31 January 2009.

Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)
I am listing this for FLC because I feel it meets the criteria. Peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - all issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.-- Tru co  15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24  review me
 * To be consistent with other FLs, can you changed the article name to List of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States). Please and thank you! --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24  review me 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the comment. This had to be a massive change. Lists included in List of number-one hits (United States) do not start with "list". Better consult with WikiProject Record Charts. --Efe (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eee...ahh...I'll contact them ASAP. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24  review me 06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs 4 and 65 have different retrieval date formats from the rest; make them all consistent.
 * Ref 65 have been fixed. For ref 4, I am using cite web, the rest cite news. I believe that's the reason why its inconsistent. --Efe (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will fix that one manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be fixed unless we change cite web. --Efe (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I fixed it. Ever since they unlinked the dates (thank goodness!), you can use whatever format you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know how to fix it myself. --Efe (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 22, add . Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. --Efe (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment The name of this article seems odd to me. Why not just "Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008" (are there other Hot 100s?). Also, shouldn't Billboard be at the start of the title? indopug (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems this is a general comment. I suggest you post a comment here Indopug. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments The lead isn't written brilliantly, some of it is a real mouth full, so to speak.
 * There are inconsistencies with the usage of United States/US.
 * I am using United States as a noun and US as an adjective. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is UK chart info relevant to this article?
 * Which line? --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You got it :D — R  2  05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Grammy info relevant? They have nothing to do with sales (or so we are lead to believe), and they are technically an international award (or so we are lead to believe).
 * Removed Grammy. I was carried out. Some FLs do include it. But as you have said, it has nothing to do with the chart performance. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Will add more if I see it. — R  2  03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Realist. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Did a bit of work on the lead. Very good. — R  2  05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.