Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2019/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) 00:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2019 edit

Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2019/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here's the 68th of these lists to be brought to FLC for your consideration. This particular year was an interesting one: a bloke with a white bucket on his head achieved a country number one, but Lil Nas X didn't, because after one week on the chart Billboard decided that "Old Town Road" wasn't actually a country song after all, which ruffled a few feathers. As ever, your comments are invited and will be actioned promptly.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"main charts that" link charts.
"introduced in 2012" could link that 2012 article I just reviewed.
"The seven-week run at ... unbroken run atop" run run repeat.
"the feat of ... a feat no" feat feat repeat.
What's EDM?
List of Billboard number-one country albums of 2019 is a redirect, but if you keep it, at least italicise Billboard.
NYT ref needs a subscription.

That's all I can see on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
"an action which caused controversy": What was it that happened that was an indication of controversy?
"had become a controversial topic": I've already hit my quota on this word so I will just note it without criticism ... but others may have opinions on this.
FLC criteria:
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table; "Eric Church" looks like he's probably out of sort order in the next-to-last column.
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, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. Is a better image, or a crop, available for Chase Rice? Also, it's described as an "official photo" but "own work" ... not really sure how it can be both.
6. It is stable.
Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: - the controversial element of "Old Town Road"'s removal from the country chart was the claim by some people that it was influenced by Lil Nas X's race, and that if a white artist had produced a similar "rap with hint of country" song, Billboard would have been just fine with leaving it on the country chart. I don't know if explaining all of that is too much detail for this article, though.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW I toned down the other use of "controversy" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see the problem now, and I don't have a solution, certainly not one that's going to work for everyone. I like your edits since my last edit. - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Dank: - added a very brief explanation, which hopefully will make it clear why it was controversial without overloading the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's probably the direction I would go with a similar article, but see my standard disclaimer above: I don't know what I'm doing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just a quick note to say that I will now be off-WP till Tuesday evening. If there's any fresh comments in that time, I will pick them up on my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

They NYT times ref might be more accurately represented by "limited" as the url-access parameter
Solid and consistent otherwise

Reliability

No issues here

Verifiability

Checked a couple, no issues. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your source review, I have tweaked the NYT ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Everything looks good. My only comment would be to archive the citations as that would avoid any issues with citation rot and death. However, that is not a major issue at the present, so I support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 22:57, 10 June 2021 (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.