Wikipedia:Peer review/List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)/archive1

List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I took it to FLC, where there was not much interest. The main problem was its size, and it was suggested that it be merged with those from 2000–2008 (into a decade list). I am not opposed to this, but was this just one editor's opinion, or should it be done (this FL is just one year)?

Other things I have thought about are
 * Images – are they appropriate, and how is the alt text?
 * References – I have recently worked out how to link to a specific week's chart on the RIANZ website, but are the Hung Medien ones sufficient?
 * If a single retains its number-one reign from the previous year, is it counted as one of the number-one singles of that year (see beginning of second paragraph) – I guess it doesn't matter if the 10 lists are merged....

Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, would a history merge be appropriate? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Should the date and references of each chart where a single of New Zealand single is number one stay coloured, or should just the artist name and song and album titles be coloured? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Should certifications be mentioned? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a userspaced User:NZMusicFTW/List of number-one singles from the 2000s (NZ). Is this a better format than the current one?

Comment Hung medien is the publisher not the work[er]. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 02:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry the review has taken so long and thanks for your work on this. One problem I had is that the review is essentially about an article that does not exist yet (the whole decade list), but here are some suggestions for improvement. First I will try to answer your specfic questions, then I will try to review the article for 2009
 * I think the images are fine, though they would obviously be somewhat different for a decade list.
 * I do not see any mention of WP:ALT or alternate text in Featured list criteria. It used to be that you were not supposed to identify people unless it was someone you thought everyone would know - I have not looked at WP:ALT in a while and see it has changed a lot. SInce it does not seem to be required for FLC, I am not sure I would worry about it.
 * I assume you count the number one singles each year - if a single is in more than one year or decade, why not count it in both. I do think that records (weeks at number one) are complicated by this. If single A were number one for 6 weeks all in the year under discussion and single B were number one for 8 weeks, 3 last year and 5 this, I would say something like "Although single A was number one for 6 weeks, longer than any other in 2010, single B was number one for a total of 8 weeks, with 5 of those in 2010 and the rest in 2009."
 * If the people in the FLC said to merge it into a decade list, I think I would do it. I also think that if you do this, the GFDL requires a history merge. I am an admin and can do this if needed. You might want to try and discuss this at appropriate WikiProjects - New Zealand and Record Charts come to mind.
 * I think it is good to keep the whole row colored the same.
 * I am not sure what you mean by certification - assume that is something like certified gold or platinum? I would mention it in the text, but perhaps not in the table (X records went platinum, defined as .... they were ...)
 * The only difference in format I see is that the year (as well as month and day) are included, and there are no pictures.
 * Now to review the article itself. First off, WP:LEAD says not to have more that 4 paragraphs in the lead, but this lead has 5 paragraphs, 3 of which are just one sentence and 1 of which is only 2 sentences. I would combine the short paragraphs to improve flow.
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Jason Mraz only needs to be linked once in the lead and once in the table. Caption is your call - my guess is a link is not needed there.
 * The MOS says if abbreviations like N.Z. are used ,they should be spelled out first (as is done with RIANZ)
 * This might be part of the certifications issue you raised above, but I think it would be helpful to give some idea of how many copies were sold - I do not think this has to be done for each single, but if the record holder for the year 2009 were given, that would be useful. I know NZ has a smaller population than the US or UK, but I am not sure what a number one single sells there, typically.
 * If the lists are merged the RIANZ charts navebox at the bottom will need some work.

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)