Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1977/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1977 edit

Featured list candidates/List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1977/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here's #35 in this series of articles for your consideration. In this year, the Floaters floated to million-selling success, but they sank without a trace pretty soon afterwards...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

for the table header add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
Thelma Houston's "Don't Leave Me This Way" -- except for this, the series mentions the name of single followed by artist, perhaps it should be consistent?
could only climb as high as number 63 -- perhaps only peaked at number 63
That's all I got. Another solid work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review, I have actioned your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk and source review

I see no problems with the prose, so why not a source review too:

Ref 6: Use apostrophes for quotes in quotes, per MOS:QINQ

ChrisTheDude, that's it, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I made a minor prose tweak; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric 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 list 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.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 30 September 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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