Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 2000/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, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 2000 edit

Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 2000/archive1

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to new millennium! Wait, what do you mean it's been the 21st century for the past 23 years?!? Anyways, in the middle of 2000 is when I moved from New Jersey to Florida where I (unfortunately) still live. Pretty great song selection this year! Looking to addressing any comments. Erick (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lead image caption needs a full stop
"In 2000, seven songs topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine." - I count eight in the table.....?
"Singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona's song "Desnuda" was at number one at the start of the year where" - I would say that "At the start of the year singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona's song "Desnuda" was at number one, where" reads more smoothly
""Cuando", which spent seven weeks at number one between September and November and was the only artist" - need a comma before "and was", otherwise you are saying that "Cuando" was the only artist etc.
"It spent a total of 19 nonconsecutive weeks at this position, a record at the time for the most weeks at number one on the chart, previously held by Cristian Castro's song "Vuélveme a Querer" in 1995" => "It spent a total of 19 non-consecutive weeks at number one on the airplay chart, breaking the record for the most weeks at number one set by Cristian Castro's song "Vuélveme a Querer" in 1995"
"Thalía achieved her first chart-topper with "Entre el Mar y una Estrella" - closing quote mark missing on the song title
"which spent eights weeks at this position" => "which spent eight weeks at this position"
"Ricardo Arjona spent a total of 19 weeks at number with two songs." => "Ricardo Arjona spent a total of 19 weeks at number one with two songs."
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP edit

I'm new at FLC so forgive me if anything I say here seems dumb.
Sourcing: this is entirely sourced to the website of Billboard. That verifies the list but I was really hoping for something confirming its notability - another source, other than Billboard, that treats this chart and who tops it as notable, preferably something from a reliable source characterising what topping this chart actually means for the people who do it (e.g., "XXXX says topping this chart means you're ...") but at least discussing it in detail somehow. Otherwise, at the very least we are lacking a bit of reliably-sourced context about why this is important. I understand notability isn't an issue normally dealt with when reviewing for FL but if the only cites are to a single source then it's a potential issue.

Take a look at List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2000 by ChrisTheDude (or any of his FLs, which are the main inspiration for these lists I'm making), a FL about a music chart in the same year. That's how the lists about number-ones of the year are supposed to look like.

I'll AGF on each individual reference as there's too many to check individually (as an aside, is there no single reliable source listing these?). However I note these are references to the present website of Billboard, and may not exactly represent what Billboard said back in 2000.

Please elaborate on the last part. The charts are exactly the same as the printed version.

Hi Erick, the originals don't say "Latin Pop Airplay" anywhere. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a subchart of Hot Latin Songs" - was it called Hot Latin Songs in the year 2000? Looking in old copies of Billboard on the internet archive, it looks like this could have been called "Hot Latin Tracks" in 2000, and possibly "Latin Pop Airplay" was called something else then (in fact I'm not sure they had any special name for it then - the 1994 source in the article doesn't use any special name).

TBF, I think that would just confuse readers if we use its former name.

I think for accuracy we've got to at least mention the name they were called at the time somewhere, and explain that the sub-chart wasn't called "Latin Pop Airplay" in 2000 somehow. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, seven songs topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine - I also count differently on this. The magazine having 52 issues is unsurprising for a weekly magazine.
Addressed this.
Did Son by Four really only spend 19 weeks at no. 1? Billboard said 20 weeks in their 16 December 2000 edition.

Yes, the link you posted is for the main Hot Latin Songs chart, where it spent 20 weeks at number one there, not the Latin Pop Airplay chart.

OK. That makes sense. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It was also named the best-performing Latin pop song of the year" needs a full-stop.

Addressed this.

The pictures are OK but ideally the top-most picture should be one with more visual impact than the one presently used for Son by Four, and (depending on the resolution available) could be larger than the others to give this page some "pop" to draw people into the article. I get that Son by Four were the group that was most important musically in this chart in 2000, but the photo for them doesn't say that. Any of the other photos presently used would be better as a top-most photo IMHO.

This is the only image of Son by Four that I could find in the Internet that was released under CC. In fact, that image exists because I convinced a photographer to release under such license.

Couldn't you use one of the other photos top-most? FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In as much as it is possible to check the photo licencing here, this appears OK.
Going down the criteria I get:

1. Prose - good.

2. Lead - OK. Main concern is we don't quite tell people why topping this chart is important.

3a. Comprehensiveness -good.

3b. Inline citations - good for confirming these songs were top on this chart at the dates specified, slight concerns over other facts already discussed above. Using multiple sources is a good idea to avoid this kind of issue.

3c. List criteria - I have a concern over WP:LISTN if the only citations are to Billboard. This is particularly so when this is a relatively minor sub-chart. No length issue. I have concerns on the fork issue since we do have List of number-one Billboard Hot Latin Tracks of 2000 and this chart was just a sub-chart of it in 2000, and that article isn't very long. EDIT: thinking about this, there were two other charts that would have to be combined so probably not a fork.

4. Structure - good.

5a. Text/formatting style - good.

5b. Visual appeal - OK.

6. Stability - stable.

And that's me out. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: See my replies above. Thank you for your review. Erick (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I did a quick dig and and found it was in fact called Hot Latin Pop Tracks back then (https://www.proquest.com/docview/227124504/6EE0DD956ECD4681PQ/9?accountid=196403 ] . So yes, you were right about that. I did some amends on the list and changed the top image to Ricardo Arjona. Erick (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: - I'd add that reference to the article somewhere. The Arjona photo is more visually appealing. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP Done! Erick (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a pass of the FL criteria. My WP:LISTN concerns are still there if there's only one source, particularly as notability standards have only gotten tighter in recent years. FOARP (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992 edit

"then-known as" → "formerly designated as"
"At the start of the year singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona's song "Desnuda" was at number one, where at the start of the year where it spent 12 consecutive weeks on this position until it was knocked off by "Dónde Está el Amor", performed by Charlie Zaa, in the issue dated March 25." → "At the commencement of the year, Ricardo Arjona's "Desnuda" occupied the pinnacle position, sustaining the summit for 12 consecutive weeks until it was dethroned by Charlie Zaa's "Dónde Está el Amor", in the issue dated March 25."
"The ballad version of the track was released to Latin pop stations and gained popularity after it was featured in the Mexican soap opera La vida en el espejo (1999)." → "Latin pop stations received the ballad rendition of the track, propelling its ascent to popularity subsequent to its inclusion in the Mexican soap opera La vida en el espejo (1999)."
That's all I have. – jona ✉ 21:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now support this list's nomination. Good job once again Erick – jona ✉ 22:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:, @FOARP: , @AJona1992: I think all the issues you all brought up. Erick (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I realise that it was suggested by the editor above, but I think some of the language in the article is now really excessively flowery. Why say "At the commencement of the year" when "at the start" is perfectly fine and indeed much more natural English? Nobody would ever refer to "the commencement of the year" in conversation. It just seems like using fancy words for the sake of it. "Sustaining the summit" also seems a bit OTT... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude Thanks for the reply, I reverted some of my edits per your concerns. I hate to ask of this of you, but you could do another review of the list? Erick (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes and now support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 00:03, 30 June 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.

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