Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1951/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) 00:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC).

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1951

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's my 10th FLC of a list of number ones on the antecedent of Billboard's R&B/Hip-Hop chart. In this particular year one of the chart-toppers was a track which is now regarded as one of the contenders for the title of "first ever rock and roll record"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Link "Black Night"
 * "the longest unbroken spell at number one" – maybe clarify that this was the longest streak that year (presumably) instead of all-time?
 * In the table, "'T' 99 Blues" appears to have an extra apostrophe – either it should be removed or every other occurrence should have this apostrophe
 * Note that the apostrophe also affects sorting order in the table
 * "The Glory of Love" should sort by "Glory"
 * - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

 * and pianist Charles Brown[3] -- I think you can invoke this citation at the end of the sentence.
 * I would move Ref4 to the end of the last sentence in the second para
 * That's all from me. Could not find anything else to quibble, another well-written piece! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - those AllMusic refs were citing the descriptions of the musicians ("ballad singer and pianist Charles Brown" and "pioneering doo-wop group") and don't cover the remainder of each sentence (the bits about their runs at number one, which are covered by the table) hence why I put the refs where I did, but I guess it's no big deal where exactly they go..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Support -- Looks good and thanks for the clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * The first paragraph feels a little dense to me, but I don't see any errors. I'm not doing much prose reviewing these days ... I'm having some health issues and I'm not sure that I'm still up to the task, but FLC generally requires at least three supports, and I think you're in good hands here, so I'll leave it alone. I can still make a useful contribution here, I hope; there's a lot of grunt work involved in a review that mostly requires familiarity with the process.
 * The table needs a caption. I added a table caption.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I checked sorting on all sortable 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 article 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) 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One more thing ... I do have one recommendation that would move the last part of the first sentence into the second sentence (although, if you do this, the second sentence might then need to be either shortened or divided up into two sentences ... your call). You have "In 1951, Billboard magazine published two charts specifically covering the top-performing songs in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B) and related African-American-oriented music genres: Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records, based on sales in stores and plays in jukeboxes respectively. The two charts are considered ...": I prefer "In 1951, Billboard magazine published Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records, two charts covering the top-performing songs in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B) and related African-American-oriented music genres. The charts, one based on sales in stores and the other on plays in jukeboxes, are considered ...". It's a tiny change, but I think it would help for two reasons: 1. Readers, especially those who aren't familiar with the subject matter, need all the help they can get to quickly figure out what the article is about so that they can start to put the information you're giving them into context. Shorter first sentences are easier to digest (if they can be shortened without violating some other rule); also, "Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records" is really helpful in understanding what the article is about, so the sooner you say that, the better. 2. Human short-term memory is actually quite small, so it's always best to answer questions raised by the text as soon as possible (in this case, "which two charts are you talking about?"), especially in the first sentence. I'm not saying that this is easy, there are always opposing considerations ... but it's desirable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - sounds reasonable - changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Source review – The references used are all to high-quality reliable sources, are well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


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