Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1976/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, 16 October 2023 (UTC).

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1976

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's the 34th nomination in this series of lists and this time round it's all (well, largely) about disco, baby :-) Feedback as ever most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * MyCatIsAChonk
 * Use abbr template in the "Ref" column header
 * , I see nothing else, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - very cross with myself for forgetting that :-) Now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

 * more than one number one during the year; both acts had two chart-toppers -- more than one number one reads a bit repetitive or in close proximity with each other. Maybe tweak a bit like were the only two acts to achieve more than one chart-toppers, with two each or something alongs those lines.
 * That's all I got. Another great work in your series as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - thanks for your review. I've made a slight tweak.  Not exactly what you suggested but hopefully it works....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reads even better. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * Did we ever make a decision on whether "partial subscription needed" applies to Billboard?
 * Everything looks great. Here comes the boilerplate.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric 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) 20:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing: WP:UPSD puts the New York Post in a category of "source should generally be avoided, but context matters a lot here". If you can find a different newspaper for that story, great; if you can't, then leave it as is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - I replaced that NYP ref. It was only being used to ref that McCoo and Davis had previously been in the Fifth Dimension -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support--金色黎明 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay to me. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.