Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Best Selling Rhythm & Blues Singles number ones of 1968/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC).

List of Best Selling Rhythm & Blues Singles number ones of 1968

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's my latest nomination in this series and we carry on through the late 1960s. In this particular year, different versions of the same song were at number one at the start and end of the year, but the one that was number one at the start of the year was recorded after the one that was number one at the end of the year. Confused? Read on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * Aretha Franklin should sort under F for the Chain of Fools entry.
 * I think you may have missed 'sronly' for the non-visual screen reader.
 * That's it from me. Great work, and a very interesting year indeed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

NØ

 * "which spent three weeks in the top spot" - I'd go for "three weeks at the top spot" but you're typically more grmmatically correct than me so maybe it should be "in"...
 * "Redding had died in a plane crash in December of the previous year just days after recording the track,[5] and as well as topping the R&B listing the song became the first posthumous number one on the all-genre Hot 100 chart." - There seems to be something slightly off about this sentence. How about "Redding had died in a plane crash in December of the previous year just days after recording the track, which topped the R&B listing as well and became the first posthumous number one on the all-genre Hot 100 chart."?
 * That's all, and I really had to scratch my head to even come up with two things to nitpick about. If you can, I'd appreciate any comments at my current FAC :) --NØ 07:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - point 2 done, point 1 not done as "in the top spot" is the usual way of expressing it eg the first sentence of this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support--NØ 07:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * "The Dells have been inducted": "have been" strikes me as odd, since (according to our article on the group) they were inducted in 2004.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've skimmed the prose; nothing else caught my attention. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Quick comment – Ref 11 needs a publisher (AllMusic). Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - whoops! Now added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoted. -- Pres N  21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


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