Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2019. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2019.

Full current month log

view - edit - history


Welsh Premier League Golden Boot

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A bit of a pet project for me in creating a Welsh Premier League list and attempting to take it to FL. The list is for the winners of the Golden Boot, for the top goalscorer each season and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "before being rebranded as the Welsh Premier League in 2002" - this isn't mentioned (or sourced) in the body of the article
  • "on 6 Janu2 1993" - think something's gone a bit awry there ;-)
  • "Eifion Williams' won the Golden Boot" - stray apostrophe there
  • "Eifion Williams goals-per-game ratio" - ah, this is where that apostrophe was meant to be ;-)
  • "In 2004, the award was won by Andy Moran of Rhyl however, he" - comma should be before "however", not after
  • "Griffiths' last win, during the 2011–12 season remains" - needs a comma after "season"
  • Chris Summers link in the table points to a dab page
  • Think that's it from me. Just little tweaks needed. Shame we don't have pictures of any of the players concerned.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks Chris for your review, I believe I've addressed all of the issues. The lack of images is a shame, I spent sometime trawling through Flickr in the hope of finding something but no luck. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • I know it's in the infobox and main prose, but it might be nice to indicate the first year of the award in the lead. Something like this addition: "The award was created in 1993 for the inaugural season of the competition..."
  • "outscoring his nearest competitor Andy Cole in the English Premier League by nine goals." Place commas after "competitor" and "League".
  • "The award was subsequently given to the second highest scorer..." Make it "second-highest" with a hyphen.
  • Change the Ref(s) column heading to {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}} (which looks like this: Ref(s) ).
  • According to the "Awards won by club table", the award has been issued 29 times, not the 27 times indicated elsewhere.
  • Refs 2, 4, & 10 (for example) are in sentence case, but refs 3, 5, & 6 (for example) are in title case. Chose one format and apply the same style to each (sentence case seems to be the most prevalent here).
  • Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@NatureBoyMD: Thanks for your review, I've fixed all of the issues raised above. A quick note to yourself and Chris The Dude, I've managed to secure an image from a Flickr user now in case either of you want to include it in your reviews, cheers. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kosack: The above changes look good. Regarding the image, it needs alt text with the |alt= field and a period at the end the full sentence caption. One more thing I noticed, the "Awarded for" description immediately below it does not need a period as it is not a complete sentence. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@NatureBoyMD: Fixed those two issues now, cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. Great job to you! Care to check out my FLC? – zmbro (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.

List of felids

Nominator(s): PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In a complete break from my usual video game-by-company or scifi award lists, as well as my usual editing, a couple weeks ago I decided to start a new project and build up a taxonomic list article instead. I pulled the data into a file, wrote a program to build wikitables out of it, and here's the result: List of felids, a list of all 41 species in the Felidae family, otherwise known as "cats". I based the format on the relatively recent FLs List of parrots and List of fruit bats, and the taxonomic structure on the thankfully recent IUCN classification update, like our articles (mostly) do. I got some small but positive feedback from people who work more often in the biology area, so I'm hoping that this FLC will be a good proving for what I hope to turn into a series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I love these animal lists! A few thoughts:

  • What is the purpose of the colored boxes? I see the fruit bats list uses them to distinguish the taxonomic levels, but this uses a purple instead of teal for genus, in case they were selected for a reason. I think the framing around the entire table is a bit much and the format at List of cetacean species is a lot cleaner.
  • Now unframed. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Where are the sources for the species table itself? A couple general sources would be fine but they need to be specified. "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" looks like it but mark it somewhere that it's for the whole table and not just the in-line use.
  • Added an explicit heading that calls out the source. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The other articles all have the genus name, describer name/year, and number of species in the same line. You know I'm a fan of consistency, so consider using the same format here.
  • Done. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since "conservation dependent" is a deprecated category, it does not need to be listed in the IUCN key.
  • Done. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you be willing to add additional informational columns? The cetacean list has population and size, and I think both of those would be useful here since many felines are endangered and they represent a range of sizes.
  • Redid columns; added one with size, habitat, and hunting info, and add population counts to the IUCN status column. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Basically the only articles that link here are the others in the Mammal species navbox – not even Felidae links here! You should advertise your fine work by adding links to eg Felis and perhaps Template:Carnivora if there's a good spot on that.
  • I note the above two because this should actually serve a unique purpose – we got by fine without this article before you created it last month. I mean, Felis and Leopardus already have tables with much of the same information, so I'd like to see what can stand out as a definitive resource that clearly passes 3b. Someone just pointed that out on the talk page today, and while a merger to Felidae is certainly feasible (34 species is not that long) for once I'm not going to push for one.

Reywas92Talk 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started on this- I've converted the genus tables to just have a header like the Cetacean list instead of a surrounding color, and added a population column which I've filled with the data present at the IUCN site. It doesn't have data for all species, so I'll look further. The list isn't linked in a lot of other pages because one user dislikes these types of lists and has decided to prove that it is duplicative by removing the seealso links I made and instead add in subsets of this page onto Felidae etc.. I'm not going to argue about it with them unless/until I get a wider consensus. --PresN 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay I see they're now copying your work into the Felidae article and it doesn't look anywhere as good by combining columns. I think either that should be left as it was as bullets, linking to the list, or your list should be merged there. I would be glad to back you up on that because otherwise this wouldn't pass 3b and their table is ugly. Reywas92Talk 05:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Jts1882, who is also active in the area, has added some suggestions for reorganization on the talk page which I'm taking up, so the list will be in flux for a bit while I add data into the new columns. --PresN 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Now addressed all of your points, @Reywas92:, so this is ready for another look. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing any further problems, Support Reywas92Talk 23:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I love animal lists so I'm happy you put effort into this but I have two questions. It looks like you excluded all extinct felids despite mentioning at least one (Proailurus) in the lead? I don't think this can be considered a list of felids without including all felids in the list. Also this list appears to be copied in the Felidae page. Is this a duplication issue? Mattximus (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I excluded extinct felids for two reasons: 1) the other animal lists exclude them (unless they went extinct post-1500CE), so I followed suit 2) extinct species are much more chaotic as to how they are divided into genuses etc.- a lot of time it's just one skeleton someone saw in the 1800s that some minimal research (compared to how much goes into extant species) has put into a category. It didn't seem to fit with the more robust table of extant felids.
As to duplication, see above- one editor disagreed with this list's existence and has tried to inject a table into Felidae to force its merger. It's overwhelming the article a bit in my opinion, and I'm also expanding out this table with additional information at the moment in order to further justify its separation from Felidae. --PresN 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Drive-by comment I realise that you've already been discussing this subject on the article's talk page, but, speaking as your average zoology-ignorant pleb, I had absolutely no clue what "felids" were until I opened the article. I do know what felines are, though. For what it's worth, I think "felines" is the more WP:COMMONNAME and would therefore make this technical article more understandable, but that's really a discussion for editors who have spent more time on the article. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors:. To be fair to User:PresN that was the original title and it was changed as a compromise. The problem is that felines is used both broadly for all living cats and more narrowly for subfamily Felinae, exluding the pantherines of subfamily Pantherinae (e.g. lions and tigers). This sets up a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and use of an unambiguous term, although I doubt many people seeing list of felines would be surprised to see lions and tigers included. Perhaps the issue should be reopened.   Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fair enough, it's just that I read "A member of this family is also called a felid or feline" in the lead, and my immediate thought was "Well, why isn't this article called 'List of felines' then, since everyone knows what a feline is?". But, like I say, that's for better-informed editors than me to decide. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Director comment – We could really use another review to get this FLC over the line. I'd normally be happy to do it, but I'm the last remaining uninvolved closer so my hands are tied here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per Giants2008 an additional review is needed to close this so I'll happily take a look. The only issue I see is that the second sentence in the lead's final paragraph has four sources for such a small sentence and a single fact. It reads as citation overkill. Can the sources be cut down or the sentence separated? DanielleTH (Say hi!) 22:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleTH: Done! --PresN 20:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, support. This list is very detailed and complex, great work with it! DanielleTH (Say hi!) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. – zmbro (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment Under the bay cat, you write "distribution in Indonesia" however most of the sightings are in Malaysia, not Indonesia. So this caption is incorrect. There is also a different (better?) range map in the Bay Cat page. Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • actually several of these captions are confusing "Canada and parts of northern America" Do you mean "northern United States"? What about Alaska"?
  • What does "Curved stretch of middle and southern Africa" even mean? Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mattximus: Fixed these (and one more use of "America" to refer to the United States). --PresN 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – The references are sufficiently reliable, formatted well, and the links are in working order. No problems to report here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Billboard Best-Selling Popular Record Albums number ones of 1945

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 08:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Following the promotion of the Billboard 200 number one list for 2001, here is the first Billboard album chart from 1945. Thank you all in advance. Lirim | Talk 08:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • I fixed a typo for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment - if Best-Selling Popular Record Albums or Billboard Best-Selling Popular Record Albums doesn't exist, why is this notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: These articles are not needed or could be redirected to the Billboard 200 page. The chart is mentioned here in the Billboard 200 article. The page was originally titled, List of Billboard number-one albums of 1945. As the first Billboard album chart, which incoporated all genres. This should be notable.Lirim | Talk 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought if notable, then redirects would be there, at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Created a redirect.--Lirim | Talk

Comments

  • "Robert Wright " is piped to a redirect.
  • You use "topped" five times in the lead, can you mix it up a little for less repetitive prose?
  • " was certified gold " link "certified".
  • Is there any reason that "Original Cast" is thus capitalised in the table?
  • "18 weeks, by Capitol for 17 weeks and by RCA Victor for nine week" MOSNUM, 18/17/9 or eighteen/seventeen/nine.
  • "Bing Crosby (pictured in 1951) was the only artist with two albums atop the chart." do you mean the only "solo" artist?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank You.--Lirim | Talk 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments

Grammar:

  • Comma needed after "Best-Selling Popular Record Albums" in the first sentence.
  • No comma after "three weeks" in paragraph two sentence two.
  • No comma after "Glenn Miller & His Orchestra" in paragraph two sentence five.
  • No comma after "album of the year" in the second-to-last sentence in the final paragraph.

Also, no images used on the page have alt text, which is needed for accessibility reasons. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 20:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DanielleTH: Done.--Lirim | Talk 22:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Changes look great. Happy to support. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment SupportDecca Records could use a link in the lead, unless there's one that I missed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Done.--Lirim | Talk 23:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Kinda picky but in one instance you write out "twelve" while everywhere else you use numbers for everything above 10. I'd say "12" for consistency
  • 9 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
  • The bottom 2 images seem a little big to me.

Sorry this has been up so long. Should have my support soon! – zmbro (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Thank you. The Rambling Man, critizied that the numbers all need the same format, so I didn't change it.--Lirim | Talk 06:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. Everything looks good on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have found and fixed two redirects in the lead and see also section and also fixed missing dot. Whole table should be checked at an angle of redirects. Eurohunter (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: I found one redirect in the table and removed it. Thank you.--Lirim | Talk 01:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Promoting! --PresN 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • 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.

List of National Football League rushing champions

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it’s been sitting in my queue for several years now after a stalled 2014 nomination. It’s fundamentally the same as then, when I improved it from the start to meet guidelines. This article covers all the NFL’s rushing champions - that is, the user with the most rushing yards at the end of the regular season. It also denotes which players are currently active, which players made the Hall of Fame, which players won major awards, and which players won the title in their first season. References are cited when needed, with a broad general references section covering all of the essential references for the table. Notes are added for years in which a non-standard number of games are played (1932 to 1934, as well as the two strike-shortened seasons of 1982 and 1987). Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Seven rushing champions have recorded over 2,000 rushing yards..." - I'd suggest moving the link to "over 2,000 rushing yards".
  • Image size: Per WP:THUMBSIZE, image size (such as "150px" as used here) should not be forced. Rather, use "|upright=". Simply leaving out the size may be appropriate as well. They just seem too small as is.
  • Done. The images fine nicely without forced sizes. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Images: All images are missing alt text.
  • Key: I'd suggest removing the top row ("Symbol"/"Meaning") as the first four entries are not symbols and the layout makes it evident that the second column provides the meaning of the first.
  • Key: Every column is defined except "team". Either add it to the key, or (better yet) limit the key to the actual symbols and spell out "Yards" in the winners table. They all seem self-explanatory.
  • Good idea - done. I've also moved the "games" note to the table. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Both winners tables are missing row scope.
  • Incorporate Template:sortname with each player so it will sort by last name rather than first.
  • Some entries with multiple symbols have spaces between each symbol, others are unspaced. I'd recommend a space between on all.
  • References: Some titles are rendered in title case (i.e. last bullet and footnote 1) while others are in sentence case (i.e. footnote 3). Choose one style for all references.
  • Moved all to title case. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 9 needs an en dash between years.

NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • Given the title of this article (and the fact that the article on the general concept is at Rush (gridiron football), would it not be more accurate to say "rushing (also known as running)" rather than the opposite way round.......?
  • Don't bold "rushing title"
  • You have "accomplished" twice in quick succession - maybe change the second one to "achieved"....?
  • "Player won the title in his first season of professional football" - what is sourcing this for each player concerned?
  • I've gone ahead and removed this, actually. It isn't used on other featured lists in this series AFAIK and sourcing would require adding a ref column, which really isn't needed given the sufficiency of the general references. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Is there a reason the third paragraph has no refs?
  • The third paragraph sources everything from the general citations (specifically general citation 6, which ranks every rushing champion, team, year, and yardage number). Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Same for most of the second paragraph?
    General citations, namely the PFR link, but I have now added a citation for the seven 2,000 yard rushers as it was readily available. I removed one specific claim (the number of 1,500 yard rushers being more common at 16 games) that was not factually based from PFR but retained the 14-game statistic, as it is readily available from the source; I did reword to be less opinion and just factually note the commonality of 1,000 yard rushing champs. Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What's sourcing the entire "List of AFL rushing title winners" section?
    It is covered by the general citation, but I have added an additional citation into the table itself to the NFL Record book. Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All I got. Great job on this. – zmbro (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Makes sense to me. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – One thing that immediately catches my attention is that the main table itself is apparently unsourced. You have general references at the bottom of the page, but the sourcing would be stronger if you would add the appropriate sources as inline cites in the table headings. Other than that point, the sourcing looks good. It is reliable, the references are well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. Still, I'd like to see the main references converted to inline before this gets promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll see about adding them. My main issue with that is that this could require having either a ref column with 4-5 citations for some of the entries (for players with MVP awards, OPOY awards, active players, hall of famers, etc.) or leaving the awards as general references while citing specifically the table claims (season, winner, team, yards, and games). Which of the two is preferred? Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Giants2008 I have gone ahead and cited specifically the yards source, which covers all of the columns for the NFL table; I also added a specific citation in the upper-alpha note for games that sources the number of league games played per season. I have removed both of these new citations from the general references table. The remaining general references cover which players are active, Hall of Farmers, and award winners. Does this resolve the issue or is more needed? Toa Nidhiki05 13:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better. I'd consider this source review a pass now. Thanks for adding those cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

2016 AFL Rising Star

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is now my sixth AFL-related FLC, and follows on from my previous successful nominations for AFL Rising Star and 2017 AFL Rising Star. Allied45 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • Not much to pick up on here, but I wouldn't bold Callum Mills in the first table. Bold isn't supposed to be used for emphasis and I don't think you need to mark him out as the overall winner in that table because the second one serves that purpose. Also, I would reverse "Mills became the first New South Wales–born player to win the award, and the third Sydney recipient" and mention his club first. As it is written there is the slight possibility that "third Sydney recipient" could be taken to mean "third player born in Sydney" and I think changing the order would remove that possibility..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Done and done :) Allied45 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • Change the hover/{{Abbr}} text on the Ref. header to "Reference" since all rows have only one reference.
I see nothing else needing attention. Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks NatureBoyMD, this is done. Allied45 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Comparing this to 2017 AFL Rising Star, the lead seems short compared to that one. I think you should have the paragraph from 2017 about the nominating process in all these Rising Star lists for consistency; it also gives the reader insight on the process. I also think this would look better because having an image go into the references just looks weird to me.
  • Sorry for being nitpicky but going along with 2017, put the "round" column in the table in the front

Great job on this. – zmbro (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Zmbro! In response to your concerns, I was advised in my most recent FLC for AFL Rising Star that the scope in the table should always be in the first column. This is why I have rearranged it to have the player first. Once this FLC goes through, I will use this is the "new standard" and can modify 2017 so it is consistent. In regards to the lead, I removed the extensive explanation about the nomination process and instead linked it to the relevant section in the main AFL Rising Star article. I believe this is better than essentially replicating the same information in 25 or so articles, particularly if there are any changes or updates (it is easier to update in one place!). Again, I can modify 2017 so it is in similar style. I get your point about the images, but it is never going to look the same on all devices anyway. I hope this helps address your comments :) — Allied45 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Makes sense to me. Happy to support :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Source review
Thanks DanielleTH, may I ask what you mean by "2005 data"? Allied45 (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Allied45: Oh! I'm so sorry, I was source checking two FLCs at once and put that onto the wrong one! I support the FLC, the sources are all good. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleTH: No worries, thanks! Allied45 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1985

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There are now 27 of these year-by-year country number one lists at FL status, so here's what will hopefully be #28, covering a year in which the band Alabama broke a record for consecutive number ones........as long as you ignore a Christmas song -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "Ray Charles was more associated with the soul and rhythm and blues genres, but in 1985 he had a number one on the country chart." Says who? This could be rewritten and one/two refs would be good for the genre aspect.
    • The ref in the lead (after "Although he was far more associated with the soul and rhythm and blues genres during his lengthy career") covers this, and I added a second one for good measure
  • Ref 8/9: AllMusic is a publisher
    • Amended
  • Is there a reason AllMusic is linked everytime and Billboard isn't? There is no need to link to these sites/magazines in refs.
    • De-linked AllMusic in refs
  • Just one tipp: Billboard has an entire archive for the biggest charts. 1985 Country Songs here [1] There is no need to have 52 individual refs, when there is one. It's not wrong, but this could save you and the reader time.

--Lirim | Talk 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Great, as always.--Lirim | Talk 10:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Make sure band names that start with "The" are lowercase mid-sentence in the lead (per MOS:THEMUSIC). Other than that looks great as usual :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – can't find any issues :) Allied45 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I made one minor grammatical change but other than that it looks great. Table looks great, sources are all formatted properly, sorting is correct, and the lede is really good - love the detail on individual artists. Great work! Toa Nidhiki05 12:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – The references are reliable and well-formatted, and the links are all in working order. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)