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 [1].
- 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)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.
However, for the references, in everyhit.com capitalize the H because its how the website writes it.--TRUCO 503 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for all your help. I have fixed this last issue. 03md (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome.--TRUCO 503 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all your help. I have fixed this last issue. 03md (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
General comment Truco, the hyphen in number-one singles is correct because it is a compound adjective. I moved the article back and moved the other decade articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
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)[reply]
- 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.--<TRUCO> 503 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Done
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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.--<TRUCO> 503 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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?
There is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- 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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- Generally, only state what factors determine the ranking. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.