Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)/archive1

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (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 comprehensiveness of the lead as well as to check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Whataworld: This looks good, but I have a couple quick/easy suggestions:
 * "digital" links to Digital download, but then re-directs to Digital distribution. Should this be linked to the latter just to avoid confusion?
 * Fixed link. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the first reference listed at the bottom, I would recommend linking Billboard and Nielsen Business Media, Inc (you can link it to Nielsen Company). This may not be required, but it seems to be fairly common practice and I find it helpful sometimes, as a reader. Other than that, looks good to me! -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree this looks pretty good, here are some suggestions for improvement (mostly on being consistent on how things are done within the article). I have just reviewed another similar list and will do the third next, so some of this will be repeated.
 * Tense is odd throughout - I agree that describing the chart should be done in the present tense (as it is a current chart too), but it seems odd to describe things about the 2005 chart (three years ago) in the present tense. I would use past tense for anything that happened in 2005, except for things that continue to this day (what the Hot 100 chart is, methods to collect the data). As it is there is a mix of tenses.
 * Example of present tense: "Pop singer Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" is the longest-running single of 2005." Perhaps you are wondering why I used such tense. Its because the single remains the longest-running single of that year. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Avopid needless repetition: During the year, five acts each achieved a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, namely : Mario, Gwen Stefani, ... is immediately followed by Stefani earned her first number-one single in the United States this year, although she had been with [the] band No Doubt since 1986. Perhaps something like "This was Stefani's first solo effort; she had been on the charts since 1986 with the band No Doubt." (not sure if this is true, just trying to say something different)
 * I think it should start with Stefani because the preceding sentence is not just all about her. Its general so I cannot be specific in the succeeding line. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about Only two artists, Underwood and Brown, scored a number-one debut single this year. ?
 * Yeah. A better and succinct phrasing. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would combine the one sentence third paragraph with the second paragraph - put it with the other stuff on We Belong Together.
 * I think I still have more to add in that final paragraph. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Refs are not formatted consistently - for example is it "Billboard (Nielsen Business Media, Inc)." OR "Billboard Nielsen Business Media, Inc." I think it should be "Billboard (Nielsen Business Media, Inc.)." with a period (full stop) at the end of Inc. and after the parentheis (bracket).
 * No idea. I am using cite web and cite news. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would link pole position as not everyone will know this term.
 * Revised line. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any way any reliable third-party INDEPENDENT sources could be used or added to this article? As it is every single ref is from Billboard. I see articles in newspapers on so and so is number on on the charts - could something like that be added?
 * All info can only be supported by Billboard. Perhaps there are other sources out there but not as comprehensive as this one. Maybe I'll add more trivia that Billboard does not publish. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 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; 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)