Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960/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) 00:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC).

List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

With 1959 having gained some support, here's the list for 1960. No all-time greats gaining their first number one this year, just a near-50 year old harmonica player..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
Not much to complain about - I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL  333  01:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What's with the italicized "(pictured in 19XX)". I haven't seen that before. Is that just an aesthetic choice?
 * I would recommend that you archive the urls, but the archiving bot hasn't been working for me lately, so no biggy.
 * - thanks for your review. Re: point 1, it's because the picture of Butler is the only one that isn't contemporaneous with the list of number ones, so it's to clarify that he wasn't a grey-haired old man in 1960..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 December 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 fixed one little punctuation snafu; otherwise I found nothing to fix. 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) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


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