Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1943/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, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1943

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

With 1942's list having received three supports so far, here is the next in the series....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Quick comment – As with the 1942 list, the book references with year ranges in the titles (numbers 2, 4, and 11) need end dashes, and the ISBNs for refs 2 and 4 match and need to be checked. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – My small issues have been resolved. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass
Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Jazz musician Duke Ellington.JPEG — I can't access the source link
 * File:Ink Spots Billboard 3.jpg — The commons licencing states that this image was published "in the United States between 1926 and 1977 and without a copyright notice specific to the advertisement." But the Google books version of the Billboards magazine has a watermark stating "Copyrighted material" on the bottom right corner of the print. Although I am not sure, but why is this specifically believed to be in the public domain?
 * File:Lucky Millinder Billboard.jpg — same as above.
 * File:Harry James Billboard 4.jpg — same as above.


 * Re: the images from Billboard ads, I am no expert, but I found this additional info on another image that uses the same tag (File:Erskine_Hawkins.jpg):


 * US Copyright Office page 3-magazines are collective works (PDF)
 * "A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement."
 * United States Copyright Office page 2 "Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies.
 * 1 The symbol © (letter C in a circle); the word “Copyright”; or the abbreviation “Copr.”
 * 2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.
 * 3 The name of the copyright owner, an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner.1 Example © 2007 Jane Doe.")

So that would seem to imply that unless there is a contemporary copyright notice specifically on the ad itself, it isn't copyrighted......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine. There seems to be no copyright symbol "©" on the advertisements. Willing to accept that they were published without notice. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the Duke Ellington image with the above-mentioned Erskine Hawkins one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The new image is fine. Can call this pass for image review. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews
Comments from Dank
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * When the Lights Go On Again and See See Rider Blues are redirects.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. The prose and the table coding are 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 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 - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo The rest looks good. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "were in the jazz and swing genres" – This is used in other R&B lists also, but maybe a mention of Louis Jordan and jump blues may be appropriate. His first chart topper appeared in 1943 and he would soon dominate the charts for the rest of the forties (Whitburn lists him as the No. 1 artist of the forties at 6,522 points, far ahead of the second place Nat King Cole at 2,833). Jump blues, of course, became a popular genre and an important influence on rock and roll.
 * The musicians' strike is mentioned, but if none recorded after July 1942, it would seem that more records would be affected. If there's a source, maybe a mention that they were taken from a stockpile recorded before the strike or a way around it was found.
 * - added a chunk about Jordan. Unfortunately I can't find a good source to clarify if these specific songs came from stockpiled recordings or came to be released in some other way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, informative and to the point, but I was unable to follow through on the footnote/source "[a]". Since it's just a small fix, so I'll go ahead and add my support. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Source review – It appears that refs 6 and 7 have been added since I first reviewed the article. Those could use en dashes for the year ranges in the titles as well. Other than that, the reliability and formatting both look okay and there are no dead links according to the tool. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Promoted. -- Pres N  19:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


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