Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1956/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, 31 October 2022 (UTC).

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1956

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the 15th in my series of nominations of number one lists from Billboard's R&B charts. In this particular year, a young up-and-comer called Elvis something-or-other had his first R&B chart-topper. I wonder whatever became of him.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

 * I couldn't find something saying so in MOS, but I think hyphenated ISBN's are preferred. I use Hyphenator.
 * [3][4][5][6] - could either distributed on the preceding text; or WP:CITEBUNDLE could be used.
 * "although his period of chart-topping success was short" - looks like he had a Juke Box number one in 1957; this wording suggested to me that he only topped the charts in 1956. I don't think it's wrong, but consider tweaking it.

Source review
 * I checked all three non-zero matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector - no concerns.
 * Sources all appear to be reliable.
 * Optionally, IABot could be used to prevent WP:LINKROT.
 * Spot checks on Billboard for 21 April; AllMusic re: "arguably the greatest and most influential of the '50s rock & roll singers"; All Music & BBC re:Presley statement; all fine.
 * Seems like all info in the intro and captions is either directly cited, or based on cited info in the table.

Images
 * Images are suitable. Captions and positioning are OK.
 * Images are all PD or CC, with suitable licensing statements.
 * Alt text for the Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers image could specify how many people are in the image. I think the alt text for the images is in line with other featured content, but you could consider amending it - see the comments about alt text at this peer review.


 * - many thanks for a very thorough review. All done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'll keep an eye on this nomination in case other reviewers identify anything significant that I missed. Great work again! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Pass for source and images reviews (as that wasn't clear above). Regards, 12:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14
Great work with this ongoing series. I do not have comments on prose. Well-written and in-depth. Support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (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 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) 02:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:07, 30 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.