Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2014/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, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2014

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the latest of my number-one country song lists. If 2015 (currently nominated with multiple supports) and this one are both promoted, that will create an unbroken run from 1959 to 2020. This year, it was mostly about bro-country, so if you liked songs about trucks and pretty girls, this was a good year for you to listen to country music radio :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review Pass

 * All of the images are either from Flickr, or uploaded by the commons user under a suitable licence. The licence of all Flickr images are verified. Pass for image review. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

 * Support my concerns well dealt with, looks good to me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews
Comments from Dank
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. 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 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.
 * Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

 * Formatting
 * Standardized throughout


 * Reliability
 * No issues


 * Verifiability
 * Looks good. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ojorojo – Another well-done list; I don't see any issues here. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.