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) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1977[edit]

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my lists of country number one songs. So far 41 of these have been promoted to FL, so here's the potential #42, covering a year in which Waylon Jennings had the year's biggest hit with a song celebrating a town which a few years earlier had a population of 3 people and an alcoholic pig called Oink Van Gogh (true story - allegedly.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*I really enjoy this series. I'm going to give myself a subsection so I don't edit conflict with anyone, but I'll remove the section heading when I'm done (assuming no one else creates a section heading). - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same disclaimers as last time.
  • Did some copyediting ... as always, feel free to revert.
  • Personally, I see the point of "number one", "number 2", "number 3" ... "number 1" is very uncommon. And people who work on music lists (such as you) will probably know more about this than people who generally don't (such as me). Some people will ask for "number three", etc.
  • I'm checking all the title links in the table ... so far, I've avoided one redirect. (Some people find that useful for titles ... feel free to revert.)
  • No "unreliable source" hits on WP:UPSD.
  • FLC criteria:
    • 1. Prose is good to go.
    • 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 (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not 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. You make excellent use of images (but this isn't an image review).
    • 6. It is stable.
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Ref 8 is now a dead link (Jeannie Kendall - Of missing persons). Is it possible to find a replacement on Wayback Machine? Or WebCite?
  • Same thing with ref 9 (The Kendalls Chart History).
  • Not necessary to pass FLC, but the situation above is why I archive most of the refs used in an FL. Although it's more limited now that WebCite are no longer accepting archiving requests.
  • Might want to replace the hyphen in refs 8 and 13 with an en dash.
  • I know it's only one note, but you might want to give it its own section (between "See also" and "References")
  • Read the prose in detail – looks all good.
  • Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (fixed 2 ISBNs); promoting. --PresN 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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