Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Best Selling Soul Singles number ones of 1970/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC).

List of Best Selling Soul Singles number ones of 1970

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's the 28th in this series, and we move into the 1970s. Some of the first wave of Motown stars are starting to fade away, but luckily the label has found a new star act in the form of five kids from Indiana. Feedback as ever most gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * It was the final Supremes singer to feature lead singer -- I would think you meant final Supreme single or song release to feature Diana Ross?
 * Fixed - that was a really dumb typo!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Happens to the best of us :) Pseud 14 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * making the group the first act -- perhaps refer to group as either The Jacksons or them instead?
 * Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all I got. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * - thanks for your review. Responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NØ

 * "Diana Ross, who departed for a highly successful solo career" - Is this a widely held opinion? Since this is in WP voice, maybe just "departed for a successful solo career" would suffice
 * Consider avoiding the name switch between "The Jackson 5" and "The Jacksons" to avoid confusion for unfamiliar readers
 * "making them the first act ever to top that listing with its first four singles" - "Their" seems to be the pronoun used for the Jackson 5 elsewhere here and in their bio as well.
 * That's all from me. Incredible work! I'm really starting to enjoy this series of lists. Very well demonstrated with images as well.--NØ 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * - thanks - all done!! Re: point 3, being British I always gets confused by when/how groups are referred to as "it"/"they" in American English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- NØ 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * "Brook Benton had his first number one for ten years with "Rainy Night in Georgia".": I don't really have an objection, more like a question: if the sentence had been written as follows, would you have chosen "for" or "in"? "Brook Benton had a number one, his first in ten years, with "Rainy Night in Georgia"."
 * "The Supremes had both the first and last number ones of 1970, although only the former featured lead singer Diana Ross (far right), who departed for a solo career early in the year.": I'm not sure, but I think I prefer something like this (if I'm understanding it right): "The Supremes had the first number one of 1970 with Diana Ross as their lead singer, and also the last number one of the year without Ross, who had departed for a solo career."
 * "quickly experienced huge success, achieving four number-one soul singles by the end of the year.": Not a fan of "huge success", mainly because I don't know what it means ... are you saying that something happened above and beyond the success that comes from having four number ones in one year? If not, then "huge success" doesn't help, and might be ambiguous for some readers. OTOH, if "four number ones" doesn't feel sufficient to you to describe what was happening, then I'd have no objection at all to seeing a little more about their career that year.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. Otherwise, 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) 15:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * - thanks for your review, I actioned your points. Re: the Brook Benton caption, it's probably another occasion when my ability to correctly translate myself into US English failed :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work. On "in" vs. "for", I just wanted to ask you to think about it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose: Image review, and support
Image review
 * All images are PD and I saw no issues with the rationales.
 * Images are relevant, with suitable captions. Alt text is provided, and the positioning is fine.
 * Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

General
 * Support - one very minor comment that's not enough for meto withhold my support: Richie Unterberger could be wikilinked. Everything else looks good. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.