Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 (U.S.)/archive1

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 (U.S.)

 * 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 February 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose and the comprehensiveness of the lead.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification, Savage Garden reached number one in 1997 with "Truly Madly Deeply". Frcm1988 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Another in the series that looks pretty good so far, some of the same comments I've made before will apply - here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * I would link pole position as not everyone will know.
 * Changed the word. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have said this before, but I would clarify that the rule about not counting something if it started its run the year before is a Billboard rule / method. Perhaps in an explanatory note, and if there is a ref to explain this, give it.
 * I would make this Destiny's Child's "Independent Women Part I" is the longest-running single of 2000, topping the chart for 11 consecutive weeks,[2] four of which chart run were published in the 2001 issues. clearer, perhaps something like "Independent Women Part I" by Destiny's Child is the longest-running single of 2000, topping the chart for 11 consecutive weeks,[2] the last four of which were in 2001. would be better?
 * As suggested. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the picture - are there any others that could be used in the article?
 * As I have said before, it seems odd to have all the refs on Billboard's chart be from Billboard. Is there any general music book that says the chart is the most influential / popular/ whatever that could be cited in the lead for an independent third-party source?
 * Comments from
 * "singer Santana's "Smooth" began its pole position in 1999" - surely this should say something like "began its run at pole position", as to me "began its pole position" doesn't make sense. Although personally I wouldn't actually use the slangy term "pole position"......
 * Fixed as suggested. I will avoid such term now because it comes slangy to the majority of users I have encountered. --Efe (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "either as a lead artist of featured" => "either as a lead artist or featured"
 * Fixed. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "each topped the chart for four weeks." => "each of which topped the chart for four weeks."
 * Fixed. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, maybe it's just my shaky understanding of grammar, but is it correct to say that such-and-such a song is the best-selling (or whatever) of the year when the year was nine years ago? Surely the past tense should be used.....?
 * Not much else to say, hope these few pointers help though.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)