Wikipedia:Peer review/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)/archive1

Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am sure there are still glitches to fix. I am looking forward to passing this to WP:FLC soon. Thank you,

Regards, Efe (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left comments with Efe a couple of times regarding this... originally I was very resistant about turning this into a table, especially since (for continuity's sake), a major change to this list means a lot of work lies ahead to reformat all number-ones lists (different charts, genres, countries, albums, singles, etc.)... so I strongly believe that a real consensus about the formatting overhaul is needed first before proceeding. That said, the table itself looks good. Thanks Efe for removing the whitespace and for left-aligning the text, that really helps and makes the info cleaner and easier to read. The references column says it all — good job. All sources are there and in a neat, separate column. In the past whenever I'd update these lists (weekly) I'd replace the prior week's source with the current week... you did a lot of work digging through the article's history to retrieve those sources, Efe!
 * Comments by Ericorbit

So here is my only concern: the commentary and image at the top. I realize many people like to see a fleshed-out "intro", but as this is a list of songs, I feel that it should stay as a straightforward, simple, clean list. I fear that (although it is nicely sourced now), this type of chart analysis will open the door for editors to throw in various non-notable, fancruft-y tidbits in order to bring attention to their favorite artists. I see this on other pages, most notably the Hot 100 charts & achievements page. I also wonder, since 2008 is the example here, when can the intro be written for 2009? We're three weeks into the chart-year; do we wait til December 31? What is notable enough to place into the intro at this point? I think a lot of this kinda stuff can go into individual song articles instead of here. Same goes for the image. I can already see the edit wars starting now between someone who wants a Katy Perry picture and someone who wants a Beyoncé picture. Let's stop the headache before it even starts.

Otherwise, this looks excellent. Keep the old, simple intro sentence and the rest is just fine. Good work, Efe. - eo (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Eric, thanks for the comment. What usually pops up into my mind when not adding a commentary because we just open doors to editors to add non-notable stuffs is like protecting a page for 1 year because we fear that it might be again a subject of vandalism. If we don't add, then we should go for a rereview of this featured lists (which are part of the newly established wikiproject): Category:FL-Class Record Charts articles. As for the image, its not a big deal actually because as what I have observed during the respective PR of these FLs, other editors subjectively ask for at least a photo, for aesthetic purposes. But lets not stop experimenting. I have chosen Perry because its free, although free images of Flo Rida, Carey and Lewis exist, all of which are mentioned in the highlights of 2008. --Efe (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks great; i think this is the week that is missing: December 6 Frcm1988 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn. I really failed to locate this one. Thanks 1988. --Efe (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't start lists with "This is a list of..." anymore. I realize the list is complete, but it's still rather short. Reywas92 Talk  20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll try to revise the intro sentence based on other FLs. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)