Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1963/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, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1963 edit

Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1963/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 22nd nomination of a year from the history of this chart. In this particular year we see a couple more early Motown bangers from Stevie Wonder and Martha & the Vandellas......and then for reasons which have never been made clear, Billboard opted to scrap the chart.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PanagiotisZois edit

Overall, great work on the list. I only have one comment. "Part Time Love" is highlighted as the best-selling R&B single of 1963. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the article? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- All right; Support. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

not only in the R&B field but across all genres -- perhaps "R&B" alone is enough, not only in R&B but across all genres
minor spacing miss - "Lesley Gore,and the Essex"
That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
You're sorting "The Miracles" under "T", but "The Essex" under "E".
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. 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.
Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh - sorted the sorting of the Miracles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --Pres N 20:33, 30 March 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.