Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Official Classical Singles Chart/archive2

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Official Classical Singles Chart

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this article for FL status back in January, but the nomination was unsuccessful. Since then, I believe that the outstanding issues have been resolved, so I'm having another go. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

The following part (In January 2013, following the release of his album In a Time Lapse, Einaudi's singles) is a little odd. I think that the beginning part of the joining phrase should be "Einaudi" rather than "Einaudi's singles" to connect back to the "his" in the preceding phrase.

✓ Rewritten Please let me know if you think this is an improvement. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (E. L. James, author of the original novel on which the film was based, said that she was "delighted" that her readers had been introduced to the piece of music), I think you can paraphrase the "delighted" quote.

Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for this part (At the time of the launch, classical music was becoming more popular in the UK:), it should be a semi-colon instead of a colon.

Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these very nitpicky comments, I think the list is in great shape. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Aoba! I'll try to find some time to review your list before the end of the week. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I supported before and don't see any compelling reason not to do so again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lirim.Z

The scope shouldn't be the number, it should be the song.

I guess I'd be willing to change this, but there is precedent for tables in featured lists to follow this format, e.g. List of Top Pops number-one singles, List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists, List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table uses old syntax. You should change ( align=center ) to ( style="text-align:center;" )

Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you used ( style="font-size:90%; ) in the number-one table and not in the By artist/song/record label table?

style="font-size:90%; is used only in the Key table right at the top of the section, not on the number ones table itself. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Lirim | Talk 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lirim.Z have your concerns been adequately addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This will get a support if the author changes the scope to the songs. It's about the songs, not the numbers.--Lirim | Talk 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to change this, but I'd like opinions from one or two more editors first. Lists have been promoted to FL status with colscopes on the No. column for some time now (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), so it would seem to me that the consensus for this is that it's fine. But if the community's consensus is moving, then I'm happy for this article to move with it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your table is formated right, according to Help:Table. Support--Lirim | Talk 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when sorting the table by "No.", it reorders the first time round when it shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why that was happening, but I think I've found a workaround now. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me. Damian Vo (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 04:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.