Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960/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, 28 February 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960 edit

Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With 1959 having gained some support, here's the list for 1960. No all-time greats gaining their first number one this year, just a near-50 year old harmonica player..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL edit

What's with the italicized "(pictured in 19XX)". I haven't seen that before. Is that just an aesthetic choice?
I would recommend that you archive the urls, but the archiving bot hasn't been working for me lately, so no biggy.

Not much to complain about - I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL333 01:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - thanks for your review. Re: point 1, it's because the picture of Butler is the only one that isn't contemporaneous with the list of number ones, so it's to clarify that he wasn't a grey-haired old man in 1960..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2022 (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 fixed one little punctuation snafu; otherwise I found nothing to fix. 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) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 17:00, 27 February 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.