Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)


 * 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 Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009.

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)

 * Peer review (February 7, 2009}

I am nominating this article for featured list because it has previously gone through a failed FL review. I addressed the majority of points, passed it through Peer Review and now want to try and get it promoted. I feel it now meets the criteria and errors should be minor. 03md (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose/ Comments from  - prose issues still pending
 * Please provide the link to the previously failed FLC nomination.
 * Added the link
 * The UK Singles Chart is a record chart compiled by The Official Charts Company (OCC) on behalf of the British record industry. The chart week runs from Sunday to Saturday, and the new Top 40 chart is first revealed each Sunday on BBC Radio 1. - the new Top 40 chart? I thought it was the UK Singles Chart? Which is it?
 * In a way that you just told me, state that BBC Radio 1 only releases the Top 40 of the main chart.-- TRU CO   503  00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done
 * It is the UK Singles Chart but Radio 1 only reveals the top 40 - how else can I put this?
 * During the 2000s, 248 singles have reached the number-one position on the chart, as of 1 February 2009. - remove the dash in between the number-one
 * Done
 * Why does the title have it as well? Saying number-one is much different from saying "number 20", yet they are implying the same thing, but the dash prevents that.
 * Moved the page so it does not have a dash.
 * I would consult with the respective project to discuss moving the rest of them, because its not correct stating "number-one" and then "number twenty" when the same meaning is implied, yet inconsistent.-- TRU CO   503  00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rihanna and Jay-Z's song "Umbrella", spent 10 weeks at number one in 2007, the longest spell at the top of the charts since Wet Wet Wet's 1994 hit "Love Is All Around" topped the charts for 15 weeks. - 1)remove the first comma 2)add ", which topped" before the name of Wet Wet Wet's 1994 song name. (notice the comma)
 * Done
 * The Internet allowed music to be heard by vast numbers of people on social networking sites such as YouTube and MySpace (Lily Allen first gained exposure on the internet and her debut single "Smile" reached number one in 2006).  - 1)the last part of that sentence should not be in parenthesis, it should be in front of a semi colon. 2)Allen's statement also doesn't match up, is it meant to be like Lily Allen first gained exposure on the internet with her debut single "Smile", which reached number one in 2006.?
 * Changed to semi-colon; regarding the second point, I meant that Lily Allen made herself known on the internet and following this exposure her debut single Smile went to number one. How should I best phrase this?
 * In a way that you just told me.-- TRU CO   503  00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected the sentence
 * This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004[4] saw a decrease in record sales and the number of copies needed to achieve a number-One reduced. - why is "one" capitalized?
 * Changed
 * Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" became the first song to reach the top of the charts on downloads alone in 2006, remaining at number one for nine consecutive weeks. - notice the inconsistency with number one and number-one?
 * Corrected
 * This set a trend that was continued by Pop Idol winners Will Young and Michelle McManus and runner-up Gareth Gates;  - 1)comma before and runner-up 2)What year was this?
 * Done
 * Fame Academy winner David Sneddon, and the winner of the first series of The X Factor Steve Brookstein in 2005.  - what year was the Fame Academy?
 * Added the year
 * Reality television winners did especially well during Christmas: every Christmas number-one from 2005 to 2008 came from an X Factor winner. - 1)especially well is WP:POV, reword 2)If it was from every winner, why was is the X Factor linked to the first series?
 * This phrasing was recommended by dabomb87 but I can change it if necessary. I have Changed link to The X Factor main article.
 * Shayne Ward reached number one in 2005 with "That's My Goal" and he was followed by Leona Lewis, Leon Jackson and Alexandra Burke. - comma before and was followed
 * Done
 * Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is currently the number-one single, as of the week of 1-7 February 2009. - it should just be the week of "1 February 2009"
 * Done
 * Images
 * The image caption of Rihanna needs a full stop
 * Done
 * Some of the image captions have Number-One, they should be number one.
 * Done
 * Singles
 * In 2000, 42 songs hit the top spot, a UK charts record.  - source for being a record?
 * I cannot find a suitable source - I will have another look
 * Found a source - added reference
 * Four songs (Shakira and Wyclef Jean's "Hips Don't Lie" (2006), Eric Prydz "Call on Me" (2004), S Club 7's "Don't Stop Movin'" in 2001 and Daniel Bedingfield's "Gotta Get Thru This" in December 2001 and then again in January 2002) were at the top of the chartsfor two separate spells. - 1)Just list the names of the songs, no need to list the artists 2)Be consistent with the formatting, either say it with a format of "Song A (year)" or "Song A in year"
 * Done
 * Some of the artists have inconsistent linking, they should all be linked, examples Shakira and S Club 7.
 * Done
 * Million selling singles
 * Five have been the debut singles of talent show winners, two have been charity singles ("Do They Know It's Christmas" and "(Is This The Way To) Amarillo") and one was a novelty record ("Can We Fix It?"): - the parenthesis within the parenthesis should be within brackets.
 * What do you mean
 * I mean like "(I [Truco] am a [English] Wikipedian)."-- TRU CO   503  00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.0.45 (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this in a table format?''
 * Changed to table format

 TRU  CO  '' 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL. However, for the references, in everyhit.com capitalize the H because its how the website writes it. -- TRU CO   503  15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help. I have fixed this last issue. 03md (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome.-- TRU CO   503  17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, but other reviewers are asked to provide the viewpoint on everyHit.
 * What makes everyHit a reliable source?
 * It is the only source that I can find that provides evidence of 42 number-ones in a year being the record. The data is all accurate and covers the whole period. What other similar source could you suggest?''
 * As long as it is being used for that one claim and its other uses are supported by more reliable sources, it can stay. I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to decide Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems reliable, but I don't think we can link to it since their FAQ states This is an altruistic, non-commercial public resource for personal and educational use only. Additionally, according to their about section, it is a fan website created by a random person who has many records and lists them, but they state that they get every release that reaches the top 40 by the British Record Industry, so I see it as a bit questionable.-- < TRU  CO  >  5 0  3 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided to replace the general everyHit reference with one to the Official Charts Company website (see this link) which should be more reliable. Is it okay to leave everyHit as the verification for 2000 seeing a record number of different songs at number-one? 03md (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that should be fine. Minimal use of the source is what we are aiming for. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done
 * There is one dead link . Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed dead link


 * Comment
 * "Before the advent of music downloads, the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only, and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive." Perhaps this info is too general for the list. I think it would be better to just state what determines the chart ranking during the year. --Efe (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Before the advent of music downloads" When was it? When was digital downloads incorporated in determining chart ranks? --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only" Seems redundant or needs a little rephrasing. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive" Perhaps this could removed. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, only state what factors determine the ranking. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the redundant sentence and added that downloads were incorporated into the chart from 2005. Hope this solves that issue.
 * Better now. --Efe (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It looks to pass all of the criteria to me. Question: Will there also be lists of number ones by decade, then by year? Seems useless to do so, but the people seem to also be supporting the US list of no. 1s by years.Yobmod (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is up to others to decide - I suppose yearly tables could be created with more specific references etc. which could also get up to featured list standard.
 * This is a general comment. Yes, we can possibly create that like the yearly list of US number-one singles. --Efe (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.