Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Best Selling Soul Singles number ones of 1969/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, 30 June 2023 (UTC).

List of Best Selling Soul Singles number ones of 1969

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The lists of number ones on Billboard's black music chart reach the end of the 1960s, and we start to see the music moving out of the classic Motown era and into funkier and more psychedelic directions. Feedback as ever gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * Perhaps we can wikilink black music, for better context into the genre.
 * In James Brown's image caption, perhaps replace the enclosures with commas for the two singles.
 * Since the lead sentence of the 3rd para previews acts that have topped for the first time, perhaps the mention of with his first number one is repetitive as it directly follows that and within the same sentence.
 * I think you may have missed 'sronly' for the non-visual screen reader.
 * That's it from me. Great work overall for 1969 coverage. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - many thanks for your review, all done. Can't believe I am still forgetting that screen reader thing..... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Believe me, I forget the basics too, even when I raise them on reviews I do, I seem to miss applying them on my work :). Btw, if you have time or interest would also appreciate your input/comments a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

FOARP

 * I'm new to FLC so forgive any unusual questions.
 * Photos are good, especially the one of James Brown. In as much as I can check the copyright, appears OK.
 * I AGF on the sourcing because too many to check individually.
 * Are/were there any other charts covering similar territory or was Billboard's the only one?
 * - I believe Record World and Cashbox published similar charts, but I can't really see how/where that could easily be incorporated into this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "See also?" Up to you and not a requirement. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to say more clearly what "best charting" means in this context? Charted the longest? Sold the most?
 * - according to our own article on the topic, Prior to incorporating chart data from Nielsen SoundScan (from 1991), year-end charts were calculated by an inverse-point system based solely on a title's performance (for example a single appearing on the Billboard Hot 100 would be given one point for a week spent at position 100, two points for a week spent at position ninety-nine, and so forth, up to 100 points for each week spent at number one). I think that's too verbose to incorporate into this article.  I did change the descriptor to "number one on Billboard's year-end chart", don't know if that helps at all.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's clearer, and probably there's another list of year-end chart-toppers you might link to there if you want. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Gaye's cumulative total of ten weeks in the top spot was the most achieved by any artist" - I assume this means in 1969/that year? FOARP (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - many thanks for your review and welcome to FLC!! :-) A couple of responses above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - No problem. Happy to Support at this point. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - awesome, many thanks! And I hope you stick around FLC :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've skimmed the prose; nothing jumps out at me. 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) 03:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  00:02, 30 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.