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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:06, 31 January 2009 [1].

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)[edit]

I am nominating this list because I feel that it fulfils all the criteria. The list for the 1990s has been nominated by another editor and I followed a similar format. 03md (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my main concern is the stability of the article because the 2000s decade is not complete yet, and with the many singles that will rank on the chart will affect the content of the page, i.e. significant singles that can arise, which will affect the prose and tables.--TRUCO 02:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel there is much difference between this and significant events in football lists etc. It should be simple enough to add the name of an important single to the prose or alter the "By Artist" table. 03md (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues:
  • Some song titles in the lede are shown in italics and/or without quotation marks, the correct format for song titles is normal non-italic text contained within double quote marks
    • Changed
      • Just noticed the image captions use the incorrect form too.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What form should they be in? 03md (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • normal non-italic text contained within double quote marks, as noted above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • Spelling error in Sugababes photo caption
    • Corrected
  • You note that every Christmas number 1 from 2002 until 2008 was by a reality TV winner....apart from 2003 and 2004. Sounds a bit silly. Why not just note that every one from 2005 until 2008 was by an X-Factor winner?
    • Altered the text to read more clearly
  • Million sellers section is completely unsourced
  • This section also uses single quote marks round the song titles, should be double quote marks
    • Done
  • Use "number one" instead of "number 1"
    • Changed all instances of the latter
  • "Lily Allen first gained esposure on the internet and her debut single Smile reach number one in 2006" - gramatically incorrect (and exposure is spelt wrong)
    • Corrected
  • "....9 consecutive weeks" - nine should be written as a word
    • Done
  • "first hit the top of the charts at the end of the 1999" - misplaced "the" before 1999
    • Removed
  • A random chunk of the text before the table is in italics
    • Changed
  • In the table you use "Eminem & Dido" and "Gareth Gates & The Kumars", but other artist descriptions use "and" written as a word
    • Changed to GG & K to and, Eminem & Dido to Eminem featuring Dido, Will Young & Gareth Gates to Will Young and Gareth Gates. Five and Queen credited on cover as Five + Queen
  • In the "By artist" section you use "no. 1" once - should be "number one"
    • Corrected
  • In the same section, in the Eminem note, write "six" as a word
    • Done
  • And in the same section again, write "three" as a word at the start of the Elvis note
    • Done
  • Final (but most important of all) note - the source for the entire table is listed as the 2005 edition of the Book of British Hit Singles, I have this book and it lists number ones up to only March of that same year, so clearly it can't source any after that.....
    • Where would you recommend I label as my source as there isn't yet a copy of the book with Lady Gaga's name in. 03md (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another source will be required for the post-2005 number ones. This page has them all, although I am not 100% sure if it would be considered a reliable source...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-Fail - WP:FLC is not a substitute for WP:PR. The article should have been peer reviewed before coming to FLC. This amount of prose issues could have been avoided with a thorough peer review. This was also present in the 1990s list.--TRUCO 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not going to go into detail, since others have already taken the time to do so, but these issues should have been resolved at a peer review or informally. I see that this is your first time to attempt to bring something to featured status. I hope this experience doesn't turn you off, but keep in mind what others have said about this not being a peer review. If this nomination closes as unsuccessful, feel free to contact me and I will try to help out with some issues. Because I don't want to be so vague, here are a couple examples (may have already been mentioned):

• "During the 2000s, a total of 247 singles" (redundant)
  • Removed
• WP:PEACOCK terms and generalizations, such as "massive influence" and "increasing power of the Internet"
  • Altered the sentences
• "Airplay statistics are not used to compile the official chart[2][3]" Missing punctuation.
  • Corrected
• "first revealed each Sunday" "revealed" usually means something not seen before, as such, a chart could not be revealed a second time.
  • Removed the word "first"
• "Million selling singles" First two words should have a hyphen in between, not sure if this is the clearest section title.
  • Added hyphen; I've left the section heading as it is because I cannot think of a more appropriate way of putting in
• Why are dates linked in some source?
  • De-linked all dates in references
• Ref 8 needs more info. If the information is from many locations in the book, make it a general reference.
  • Made it a general reference
• Ref 9 needs a publication date.
  • Done
• NME is a magazine, make that the work instead of "nme.com".
  • Done
• "BBC News" is formatted inconsistently, some instances are italicized, others aren't.
  • Wikilinked all sources - consistent formatting Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all your comments. I have made the necessary changes and have nearly made all the alterations from other reviewers comments.

• File:Gaudi arena.jpg – how do we know that the author has released it under the said license. At the top of the given page (here), it says: "All photos are copyright protected and may not be used without written consent. Copyright 2007 Alexey Rodin".
• When the slashes are not part of the song title, they should have spaces per WP:MOS#Slashes—at least, those with internal spaces in one or both items. Example: "The Long and Winding Road"/"Suspicious Minds"/

"Sweetest Feeling"--> "The Long and Winding Road" / "Suspicious Minds" / "Sweetest Feeling"

• "Prior to"-->Before.
• "Reality television shows had a massive influence at the top of the UK charts." How can something have influence on the top of the charts?
• "Physical single sales fell during the middle of the decade but the introduction of downloads meant there was a revival in 2008."-->Physical single sales fell during the middle of the decade; however, the introduction of downloads led to a revival in 2008.

Still not there yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, there are tons of dabs to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all dablinks - just the redirects to do now!!!

More comments I capped my previous comments as I can't keep up with this FLC. Some comments may be repeated where I can't see that they were addressed.

• Please see WP:NC#Album and song titles and band names: No titles should have a capitalised "T" in "The" or "To", "O" in "On" and "Of", "a" in "And" and the word "A", unless they're the first or final word of the title.
• "Put Your Hands Up 4 Detroit", not "Put Your Hands Up For Detroit"
• Popstars, X Factor and Pop Idol still need italicising
• We're still in the 2000 decade, so "Westlife were the most successful group with eleven number-one singles." is in the wrong tense
• WP:OVERLINK
  • In what respect?
    • There is no need to link artists names or song titles again in the prose for the "By artist" section
• File:Westlifetour33.jpg -- no information. Cannot verify.

• There is a duplicate copy in commons. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But the article uses the local version. Fix or remove.
• How do you insert the commons version rather than the wp version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.31.186 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Gnarls_Barkley.jpg -- source link is broken. Cannot verify. Fix or remove
• File:Gaudi arena.jpg -- source link doesn't show it's cc-by-1.0. Fix or remove
• The majority of the redirects still need fixing
• "The source for this decade is the chart as published in Music Week, compiled under the auspices of The Official UK Charts Company (until November 2001 called Chart Information Network Ltd)." -- huh?
• "Madonna, Timbaland and Justin Timberlake's song 4 Minutes", for example, is counted against all three artists" -- shouldn't it be counted for all 3 artists?
• "("Can We Fix It?").[8]:" --> "("Can We Fix It?"):[8]"
• "The increasing power of the internet" --> "The internet"
• "Girls Aloud, the Popstars: The Rivals winners also had the Christmas Number One in 2002." Commas act like parentheses here.. there should be a "closing comma".
• Use template:cite book for the book in General References, and just reference the author/editor's last name, year, and page number for ref 2
• There are two footnote A's.
• "Footnote A: Reference only covers singles until 2005" -- then nothing after 2005 is referenced. If it is, reference the book and whatever else is being used in the table header or something.

Still some ways to go until it meets WP:FL?. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing comments: It appears that this has been abandoned since 7 days ago. If the nominator cannot be bothered, there's no point keeping it open. Especially with the outstanding oppose votes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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