Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1952/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) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC).

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1952

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's my 11th nomination of a list of number ones on the precursor of the Billboard R&B/hip-hop chart. This one goes out to my dad, who absolutely loves the music of Fats Domino, who had his first chart-topper in this year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

 * Great work on another well-written series! My only comment is how "5–10–15 Hours" is sorted as "Five Ten Five" instead of being sorted in numeric order? --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review

 * This is not required for the FLC, but I would encourage you to archive all your web citations to avoid future annoyance with link rot and death. This suggestion was brought on after I saw Citations 6, 7, and 10 are not archived.
 * I know this is a pain, but for the Billboard citations through Google Books, I would include the ISSNs so the citation has all the information.
 * All the citations are reliable and high-quality for a featured list. They are all from publications that I would expect to see in this kind of list.
 * I have done a few spot checks, and from what I have seen at least, all of the information in the article is accurate and supported by the citations.

Solid job as always. This will pass my source review once the Billboard citations are complete. The citation archiving is more of a suggestion than anything. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - added the ISSN. Can you remind me of the bot/script/thingy that I can run to archive the citations? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Here is the link to the IABot. Since archiving is not a required part of the FLC process. This passes my source review. If possible, I'd appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * There may or may not be a copyright issue with the B.B. King image, judging by the uploader's talk page on Commons; also, this doesn't look to me like a photo taken by a fan. Regarding the Dominoes image, is there any indication that Maurice Seymour Studio has waived their rights?
 * A table caption is required, with or without an sronly template, so I added one.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. 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. The images seem fine apart from the points already mentioned.
 * 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * many thanks for adding the caption, I can't believe I am still forgetting that. I have replaced the two images you queried -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

 * No concerns about the prose in the lede.
 * Image check pass: licencing is good, upright is used, ALT text used, captions good.
 * Source check pass: all high quality, formatting is good.
 * Note a is placed next to August 2, which says that two songs tied that particular week, but I think only Lawdy is listed for that particular week. Is "Have Mercy Baby" also supposed to be listed for that week? If so, the chart needs to be fixed. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for your review, I fixed August 2. Still not 100% sure what the issue was (even after all these years I still have the occasional issue with table syntax) but I found a workaround..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have no more concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.