Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1961/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, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1961

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the latest in the seemingly never-ending run of country number one song lists - 1944, 1959, and all the years from 1962 to 2011 inclusive are at FL. Fun fact: one of this year's biggest hits was by Faron Young, who was on the bill at the very first live concert I ever went to (not in 1961, though, I'm not that old!!!)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass
Reliability and formatting looks good, especially per previous FLCs source reviews which use the same formatting and similar sources. Btw Chris, are you planning to do all of the Billboard country lists? (if so, that's awesome!) Aza24 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have already got every country singles and albums number ones list (about 130 articles) up to what I think is pretty much FL standard, it's just a case of nominating them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I only found one mistake: the must successful → the most successful; I support this nomination once it been fixed.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed that typo - well spotted! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * FLC criteria:
 * 1. The prose is fine. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
 * 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. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I can't find a fault -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Spick and span, as usual. ~ HAL  333  01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.