Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1963/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, 31 March 2023 (UTC).

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1963

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's my 22nd nomination of a year from the history of this chart. In this particular year we see a couple more early Motown bangers from Stevie Wonder and Martha & the Vandellas......and then for reasons which have never been made clear, Billboard opted to scrap the chart.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from PanagiotisZois
Overall, great work on the list. I only have one comment. "Part Time Love" is highlighted as the best-selling R&B single of 1963. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the article? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All right; Support. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * not only in the R&B field but across all genres -- perhaps "R&B" alone is enough, not only in R&B but across all genres
 * minor spacing miss - "Lesley Gore,and the Essex"
 * That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have some spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * You're sorting "The Miracles" under "T", but "The Essex" under "E".
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. 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.
 * Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * D'oh - sorted the sorting of the Miracles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. -- Pres N  20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


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