Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1955/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, 10 October 2022 (UTC).

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1955

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the 14th in my series of nominations of number one lists from Billboard's R&B charts. Look at some of the names on this list - Chuck Berry! Fats Domino! Bo Diddley! We're starting the motherlode of early rock and roll here. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

 * I'd suggest adding a "pictured" in to images taken more than a couple of years away from 1955, e.g. Bo Diddley.
 * - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * All the info without inline citations from the intro is cited in the table as far as I can see.
 * Sources all look reliable.
 * Image positioning and captions look fine to me. You could consider expanding the alt text for the Platters image to say how many people are in the picture.
 * Should "disk jockeys" be wikilinked? I have no idea how widely this term is known, globally. I'm happy to go with precedent.
 * Great work, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Nothing else from me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47
Congrats on continuing with these lists. I have a lot of respect for you for doing so and it is really helpful for readers interested in this genre of music so thank you for all the time and work you put in them. My comments are below:


 * For File:Chuck Berry 1957 (square crop).jpg, the eBay link is dead, but the photo front link is active so it should be fine. I would recommend archiving this link though to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death, especially since one of the sources links is already dead.
 * File:Roy Hamilton 1957.JPG has similar issues but the front and back links also appear dead.
 * This is more of a note, but I appreciate the WP:Red link included in the list as it is always helpful to point out areas where a potential article can be created in the future.
 * For the Billboard citations, I would specify they are accessed via Google Books.
 * I would archive all the web citations, such as Citations 4, 5, and 6 just to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FLC.
 * I would create a "Notes" subsection for Note A. I know it might seem rather silly to create a whole subsection just for a single note, but it does seem odd to just have it near the bottom of the page without anything.

I hope these comments are helpful. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. There is still the issue with the Roy Hamilton image links, but since I am not super well-versed in images, I will leave that up to your discretion. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, although I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just removed the Hamilton image from this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dank
Another drive-by comment: I think I prefer what you've done with List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1957 in the first paragraph ... you take four sentences there to cover what's covered in the first sentence here. Do you have a preference one way or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - changed this one to match that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * 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 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) 22:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Source review Pass by BennyOnTheLoose
Further to Aoba's comments:
 * Sources are reliable. No issues with formatting that I could see.
 * publisher=AllMusic should be work=AllMusic, I think.
 * Spot checks on January 1 and June 25, selected on the basis that I saw artists wiht hits in those weeks play live, were fine.
 * AllMusic changed to a work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass. (Other reviewers, please ping me if I missed anything.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.