Wikipedia:Peer review/List of top 10 singles in 2003 (UK)/archive1

List of top 10 singles in 2003 (UK)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback for improvements before submitting it for FLC.

Thanks, 03 md 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ar1681 (talk) and jc3881 (talk): Overall, clear and good article. Maybe you could add more references and content. Also, the chart under "Top 10 singles" can be a little overwhelming. Maybe you could separate it into more specific and clear-cut categories (ex. by month).

May be a bit WP:IINFO as an excessive listing of statistics. I know there a few of these types of lists but are you sure they fall in the purview of Wiki content policies. That may deserve some discussion first before considering featured list status. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it does deserve a place. Perhaps if it was a top 40 list then it may be unjustifed, unwieldy and belong in an almanc, but top 10 is a typical guage of an artist's popularity by many reliable sources e.g. It was Take That's {X} top 10 hit". The primary Billboard chart has similar lists, which are only shorter due to songs remaining in the top 10 for a longer period of time. 03 md 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those are featured lists either. You are talking specifically about making this a featured list and I was providing information regarding your request, which has nothing to do with other such lists. However, my comment regarding WP:IINFO applies generally to all the top 10 list pages, too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This list has a fairly amazing amount of detail and must have taken a long time to assemble. I'll make just a few comments.

It took a bit of work but most of the time it was simply copying and pasting cells and replacing the song names. I probably put the table together in about an hour.

Is this much detail necessary and useful? Does it matter to anyone when a song entered the chart? Will anyone care in 2020 that a song in 2003 rose to #10 or #9 at some point? I notice that similar FLs on entire decades use #1 as the cutoff. See List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK), for example. Perhaps, the long table could be made more readable and useful by breaking it into several smaller tables, as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars suggests above. Perhaps #1s could occupy one table, #2 through #5 another, and #6 through #10 another. The latter two might be less detailed the first. "Weeks at number 1" would disappear in the lower charts, for example.

See my reply to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars above. Top 10 is a regular benchmark for successful songs, with BBC News being an example of an organisation that analyses and prints the top 10 each week. On your second point, in my opinion I think sortability by artist, song title and position is important is a key feature of the table and want to keep it as one table. Maybe it could work like List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK), where headings appear after each year but it remains sortable - but in this case separated by another variable. I am applying the same formula in terms of the table layout to all recent years. 03 md 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

A few sentences in the lead use "with" as a conjunction, although "with" is actually a preposition. An example is "Around 230 singles charted in the top 10 during 2003, with 219 of these reaching their peak that year." - I would suggest rewriting these sentences to avoid using "with" in this way. It's not usually hard to do. Suggestion: "Around 230 singles charted in the top 10 during 2003, and 219 reached their peak that year."

When multiple reference numbers appear together, it's customary to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [5][9] rather than [9][5].

Other

When I click on [A], nothing happens. Would it help to make the notes clickable? It's hard to tell at a glance what notes B and C refer to.

Generally, images should not overlap sections or displace edit buttons. The Elton John image overlaps sections in a big way. So does Rachel Stevens. I would consider moving the images up in the article to avoid this.

The External links section is empty (except for half of Elton John).

The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. For a list of top tens, this has a lot of extraneous information - when it entered the top ten, when it peaked, it's actual peak, and weeks at #1. From that, I think only peak position is of true interest. Weeks at #1? Go to the list of number-ones page. Way too many images, too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there is too much information. I think dates are important for a perspective of songs across the year - demonstrating songs competing for number 1 etc. The weeks at number one column - which I only added recently - could go, but only if absolutely necessary. 03 md 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]