Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1949/archive1

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, 1 June 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1949[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1949/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting another year in the history of Billboard's R&B charts. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and acted upon promptly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

I could not find anything to nitpick on this list. Another fine and excellent work from your Billboard R&B charts series that earns my support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

For the File:JohnLeeHooker1997.jpg caption, I would use the exact year that the photo was taken to provide the reader with a more exact context.
For the Billboard magazine citations, I think it would be helpful to clarify that they were accessed through Google Books by using the via= parameter. I would also add the ISSN to the citations as well as the volume and issue numbers so the information is more complete.

Wonderful work with this list. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
In the 3rd and 5th columns, Paul Williams should sort after Washington.
"arwulf, arwulf": not sure what that means.
"Big Jay McNeeley" or "Big Jay McNeely"? Even if "Big Jay McNeeley" is on the label, couldn't we make the case that that was a typo? Your call.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
4. It is navigable.
5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
6. It is stable.
Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - thanks for your review. I fixed the sorting on Williams and the spelling of McNeely (both just dumb typos on my part). If you look at the AllMusic page that is ref 8, it lists the author as arwulf arwulf, who would seem to be this chap...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 21:40, 31 May 2022 (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.