Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962/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, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, here's my 21st nomination in this series. In this particular year in the R&B charts it was all about the dance craze, as everyone was twisting the night away doing the mashed potato. Feedback as ever most gratefully received :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * Very minor, but suggest using to avoid line breaks for hyphenated words. (for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices)
 * Should The 4 Seasons be sorted first since you listed it as a numeric and not as The Four Seasons?
 * That's all I have. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * 1964 (in the navbox) answers a question I had about navboxes ... thanks for that.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I found nothing to copyedit. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. No problems.
 * 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) 20:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Source review, spot checks not done. Version reviewed:


 * Suggest archiving all links using IABot.
 * No other concerns.

Image review:
 * No licencing concerns.
 * Alt text used, no px concerns.

Support due to no sourcing or image concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.