Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1958/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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) 00:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1958 edit

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1958 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest nomination from the history of Billboard's R&B charts. In this particular year two flash-in-the-pan acts each reached number one with their only hit ever, and Elvis gained his last R&B chart-topper before his music drifted off in other directions..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass) edit

  • All of the citations come from reliable, high-quality sources, particularly in the context a music list, and they are all structured appropriately.
  • It is not a requirement for a FL, but I would still encourage archiving web citations, such as Citation 10, to avoid any headaches with potential ink rot and death.
  • Ron Wynn should be linked in Citation 9 and Richie Unterberger should be linked in Citation 3.
  • I have done a brief spot-check and everything appears to be supported by the citations.

I hope that this review was helpful. I thought it would be nice to get the source review out of the way at the start. Once my relatively nitpick-y point about two author links in the citations is addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything and for catching the second Unterberger instance that I had missed. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PanagiotisZois edit

  • The "The R&B Best Sellers in Stores chart ... top disk jockey shows in all key markets" sentence is a bit too long. I'd recommend splitting it into two sentences, with the first ending at "rhythm and blues records".
  • Relating to the above, given that quite a few quotations pop up, it does make me wonder where they come from. Following through with the above sentence split, both of them should have a citation at the end of the sentence / quotation.
  • I'm not much of a music meister, so excuse my ignorance. The last sentence in the first paragraph is a bit confusing to me. I understand that when it came to R&B songs, Billboard had to separate categories for most of the year. But then in October, they were merged into one; up to this point, everything is good. But the "which has been published continuously since that date, since 2005 under the title Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" is a bit confusing. Does this mean that the Hot R&B Sides chart is still be used by Billboard? If yes, then why is the reference to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs important?
    • Yes, it means that the chart which was launched in late 1958 continues to be published to this day. It has changed its name a number of times, though, so just saying "Billboard has published the Hot R&B Sides chart continuously since 1958" or similar would be inaccurate/confusing to readers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I get it now. I made a few changes to make the sentence easier to follow. Let me know if you have any issues with the changes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question, what is "three different acts had recordings of the same track in the upper reaches of the charts at the same time" referring to?
    • It means that there were versions of the track "Raunchy" by three different artists in the chart all at the same time. This is unusual -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm missing something, but on the table, I only see two version of "Raunchy"; by Ernie Freeman and Bill Justis. When it says upper reaches, does that mean within the top 5 range, and not necessarily number 1? That besides these two versions, there was a third one by a different artist? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @PanagiotisZois: I've clarified this point - the third version out at the same time was a pop hit rather than R&B -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • All right, things are becoming clearer. I did some looking into "Raunchy", and I'm guessing the third version was from Bill Justis. I have a suggestion on how that sentence can be reworded. You revert the sentence to how it was before, and either in a separate clause with a semicolon or as a note, you clarify that the third recording of the track - "Raunchy" - topped in the pop chart and was sung by Justis. Once that is done, I can support this candidacy. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @PanagiotisZois: Upon further consideration, as the third version wasn't an R&B hit, I just removed the reference altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly a requirement, but Elvis' epithet should probably go after his real name.

Sorry about the big questions there; I'm not all that familiar with music and how Billboard works. I'm hoping it will be helpful for the article to have a layman's opinion, so that it can become more accessible. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now that my comments have been addressed, I can offer my support to this FLC. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "The Champs" should sort under "C", according to the "defaultsort" of that article (and you do sort it under "C" in the third column, but not the fifth). I don't have a position on whether "The Music of David Seville" should sort under M or S.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I don't have any suggestions on prose. Good job. 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 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) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - can't believe I missed the sortkey for that second use of "The Champs" considering it's literally one centimetre below the one I did do right...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's okay ... it's getting harder and harder to find something to do in these lists. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass, and support from, BennyOnTheLoose edit

  • Pass for image review. All images are relevant, have suitable licences and alt text. Positioning and captions are fine. The image of the Champs isn't great quality, but seems acceptable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - up to the usual high standard for this series of lists. A script suggests that AllMusic should be listed as "work" rather than "publisher" in citations, but I see that in other articles it's a "work" and I don't think this has any impact on readers or editors either way. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Billboard_number-one_R%26B_songs_of_1958/archive1&oldid=1129544896"