Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s/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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

 * Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe everything looks good, although I haven't promoted such a list in the past. The website will be updated with a new number one song every week (until 2020), but I don't think that's a problem. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Erick

 * Support Great job! Erick (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

 * Support – Yep looks all good to me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999
I am going to Oppose, for the time being, based on the criteria. For 1) I don't think the prose is of 'professional' standard (yet). 2) That the lead covers all of the scope of the list. 4) That it is easy navigated. 5a) Does not have visual appeal. I do agree that it is 3) Comprehensive (but needs more sourcing) 5b) Has suitable media 6) Stable. — Calvin999  10:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your first comments! While I will still try to amend the issue concerning the sources, I solved your other comments and expanded the lead. I know it is by far not perfect, but I this that's an acceptable beginning to work with. I would like to get it to a better level with your help. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You've expanded the lead but you haven't sourced the additions, in addition to what needed backing up from third party sources before expanding, so it's amplified my concern about sourcing which is a big issue and unless it's addressed I can't remove my oppose. I'm sorry. It concerns me that this has garnered three supports when such glaring issues remain in relation of sourcing and verification and clearly does not meet the criteria. — Calvin999  18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will work on the issue later this week, as I've found some helpful links. Please don't close the FLC or such... Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't close it, I'm not an FAC delegate. A delegate looks at the candidacy and decides whether to reject or promote based on what reviewers have said. — Calvin999  15:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there again! After some research, I found out that a Romanian website (Un site de muzică) which seems to be reliable reported about selected editions of the Airplay 100 beginning with October 2016, as well as provided information on the chart's compilation that can be used to back up that from KissFM.ro. The pre-2016 number-ones can't be cited with magazine articles (etc...) because they don't exist on the internet. However, after even more research, I discovered an iTunes page where each podcast of the Airplay 100 was (and still is) published to listen to for free. Is this ok to back up the weekly chart podcasts published on KissFM.ro? This is all I can do with finding new sources; the Airplay 100 is not a that mediatized subject like Billboard charts & co. Also, I don't think that the facts in the lead must be referenced there, as they are in the article's body by the KissFM.ro page, iTunes page and the Un site de muzică pages. What do you think? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Calvin999, Any news on this? What do you think of the article now? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced it's of the professional standard that we are looking for in the Featured process. — Calvin999  10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , this comment cannot really be addressed. Can you list your specific concerns please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the prose is well-written still in terms of sentence structure and grammar. The references are still essentially just chart sources, there isn't any third party. Some entries in the table has citations, some don't. The tables still aren't formatted or structured to the standard I think they should be, and are missing essential elements such as a Skip to Year box. — Calvin999  10:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Can you give me some examples for sentences you think are still not well-written? Someone has copy-edited the article and I have also implemented the comments of User:A Thousand Doors. Regarding the references, this is everything I can do (we do have some third-party sources right now). What do you mean by Skip to Year box? Also, what are other "essential elements"? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors
Oppose I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Calvin that this article isn't at FL standard just yet.
 * My main issue is the lead. Only two sentences out of 10 are cited, which suggests that there might be WP:OR issues. Are there anymore reliable, third-party sources that discuss this chart during the 2010s? What sort of things do they say?
 * The sources presented in this article are – sadly – the only ones to find about the chart online. While on one hand I understand your concerns about original research, on the other hand the lead only contains only information cited in the article's body, although not directly cited by a source but rather by me listening to the podcasts and figuring out things (e.g. who was the artist with the most no.1s in the history...). Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A lack of third-party sources is a serious issue, not just with regards the FL criteria, but the verifiability and notability guidelines too. With the exception of Un site de muzică, all the sources in this article come from either Kiss FM (who broadcast the chart) or Media Forest (who compile it). Having references from so few third-party sources can open up questions about bias and neutrality. I've had a look myself for more sources and have also come up empty-handed, so I don't think this is a problem with your researching skills. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid that I still don't believe that it meets the FL criteria in its current state. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I got you. This is really a problem surrounding this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Finding more references might also beef up the lead, which, by my estimation, is rather brief. It's covering six years of chart history, but it's only 314 word long, and more than half of it is dedicated to listing the songs that spent extended periods of time at number one. Is there anything else that you can say? For example, how does Media Forest compile the chart? Is every radio station in Romania sampled, or just some of them? Is music streaming also included? Are there any quotes from artists who have topped the chart? How is the chart viewed within the industry? Are there any record labels that perform better than others?
 * This is the only information I can include in the lead, really. We can maybe do some things here and there, but there is not enough coverage of the chart online to write about the things you've mentioned. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This echoes my point above about lack of coverage. With so few independent sources writing about the chart, the lead almost feels to me like it's being padded by just listing which songs spent extended periods of time at number one, and that just doesn't make for an engaging read. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I got you... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Artists need to sort under their surname. I can talk you through how to do this, if you'd like.
 * Is there a special setting or such? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a setting per se, but Template:Sortname is usually pretty useful for sorting by surname. So you'd have, for example.,   and  . Not so sure that this template supports interlanguage links, now that I think about it... In those instances, you might have to use Template:Sort and do something like   instead. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I didn't apply this in cases like "Carla's Dreams", "What's Up" and "Grasu XXL", where the second part is not really a surname. Btw, the template supported interlanguage links. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Similarly, "The Greatest" needs to sort under G.
 * Same as above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd use  for this.


 * "the news No.1" -> "the new No.1"
 * I can't find this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's in the first bullet point in citation 19. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for noticing! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there again! I understand your points above and I also implemented what was to be implemented. I have also answered to your additional comments. Best regards and thank you for your opinion... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done your other comments. Is there anything else that needs to be revised? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Have your concerns been addressed or does your oppose still stand? -- Pres N  15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The nominator has clearly a put a lot of work into this article, but unfortunately I still have concerns that it doesn't quite represent Wikipedia's best just yet. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 12:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple other reviewers have come through since you; have your concerns been addressed or does your oppose still stand? -- Pres N  15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it is. I still have (the same) issues regarding sourcing and overall standard of the article. — Calvin999  09:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright; I understand how frustrating it can be to feel like you've addressed concerns as much as you can and still meet opposes, but at this point there's been 2 outstanding opposes for a while, and no comment at all for 2 weeks. I'm going to have to close this out; if you're ever able to resolve the opposers' concerns, feel free to re-nominate. -- Pres N  21:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


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