Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Romanian Top 100 number ones/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) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Romanian Top 100 number ones edit

List of Romanian Top 100 number ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have singificantly rewritten and cleaned up the article since my last FL attempt nearly three years ago. I have taken List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s as an example, which I have meanwhile promoted to FL. I believe this article is well-written and presents the information in a very comprehensive way. I'm happy for any comment(s). Greets!

Comments by ChrisTheDude edit

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Drive-by comment
  • I presume that available data is very patchy and that's why, for example, there's nothing at all listed for 1998 or 1999? I would definitely make this much clearer early on in the article, rather than leave readers to think "hang on, where's half the information?"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for pointing this out, I have included something in the lead. Is this okay? Greets;Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "Over the years, it was compiled by broadcast monitoring services Body M Production A-V and Media Forest" - does this mean that it was compiled by one organisation at one time and the other one at a different time? Or does it mean that it was compiled by both for all of its existence? If so, get rid of the first three words.
It was first compiled by Body and then by Media Forest. I think I adjusted the language now.
  • "After its launch in 1995, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show in 1998" - why just 1998? Was that the only year in which it was announced on the radio? How was it announced for the rest of its existence?
I restructured things, hope it's clearer now.
  • "It also gained notoriety, being featured" - I don't think "notoriety" is the word you want here. To be honest I would just say "It was also featured...."
The chart was successful and had media portrayals in Romania (there's also a magazine report on that), but I agree this is a bit too much, so I have just removed the word.
  • "Over its three-decade history" - in English, saying that something had a three-decade history means that it existed for at least thirty years. As this chart seems to have existed for only 17 years, the wording isn't appropriate.
Done.
  • "150 documented singles have reached" => "150 documented singles reached"
Done.
  • "has spent 12 weeks at the summit" => "spent 12 weeks at the summit"7
Done
  • "longer than any other song" - how do you know this for sure if records are incomplete?
The things is... everything in this article is based on just the things that I gotted from research. Of course everything is incomplete, but everything searchable has been addressed. I already say "documented" a lot, I think the user can assume that, if we had more archives, things would look different.
  • "Since the chart's inauguration," - by definition, nobody can have reached number one before the chart's inauguration, so these words are redundant
Done.
  • "multiple artists have reached number one" => "multiple artists reached number one"
Done.
  • Photo caption: "being the song with the most documented weeks at number one in the chart's history." => "making it the song with the most documented weeks at number one in the chart's history."
Done
  • Other photo captions: I don't think you need to mention when the picture was taken unless it was many years before or after the thing that the caption refers to (to indicate that the person probably looked different at the time). So, for example, I don't think you need to note that the picture of Busta Rhymes was taken in 2002 when talking about something he did in 2003......
Done, removed some.
  • "and further topped the chart with "Where Is the Love?"." => "and also topped the chart with "Where Is the Love?"."
Done.
  • "topped 2011 year-end chart." => "topped the 2011 year-end chart."
Done.
  • "The chart was founded in 1995, but had another name until 1996" - it seems odd that this fact is only mentioned in a footnote, and equally odd that you don't say what the other name was........
I would really love to mention the name, but unfortunately it isn't available. However, while I though about it, I think it isn't that much of a too-notable fact for it to be included here, so I removed it. I also restructured things a bit. Does it look better now?.
  • "In some cases, the inscriptions solely reflect the maximum amount of weeks at number one available." - "inscriptions" definitely isn't the right word here and the rest doesn't seem to make sense. Could you confirm what it means? Does it mean that a song might not have spent as many weeks at number one as are shown here? Or that it might have spent more?
I want to say that the weeks listed are in cases (especially for those where we lack archives) not the total amount of weeks at number one, but rather the found/available amount of weeks at number one. I may indeed sound weird, do you have an suggestion on how to rewrite.
I would suggest "In some cases, data is incomplete and songs may have spent more weeks at number one than shown" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your comments, I have solved several on them. I ask for advice on some, though. All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done that as well now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Not to bother you, but have your concerns actually been solved? If you're busy, feel free to disregard. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capped everything above, will have a second look tomorrow...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Start in 2004" => "Starting in 2004"
  • "unupdated" is not a word. To be honest, I am not sure that sentence is even needed, I think the previous sentence covers it.
We have a lot of archives of the RT100 website, for example in 2009, but the chart table remains frozen because it hadn't been updated there. But I understand your point; I have instead added "lacks usable archives" in the previous sentence and remove the one in question.
  • "the youngest artist ever to attain a number-one in a country" - firstly, "number one" should not have a hyphen. Also, "in a country" isn't the right wording because of course it happened in a country, where else would it happen? ;-) I think what you mean is "the youngest artist ever to attain a number one in any country"
Ahaha, thank you very much for the help, I changed up the sentence now.
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your comments, I have solved them. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HAL333 edit

Resolved comments from HAL333
Comments
Why are some issue dates just the year and other in a month and day format? ~ HAL333 01:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: A magazine reports that Michael Jackson's song was the first Romanian Top 100 number one, and that it was in 1995—no exact date given. In 1997, 2000 and 2001, the Romanian Top 100 published its year-end chart where they also stated which songs reached number one (however without a date; the amount of weeks at number one was only revealed in the 2000 and 2001 year-end charts). In the late 2000s, there are multiple archives of Romanian Top 100's homepage which listed the top 10 songs weekly. However, the homepage doesn't state the issue date of the respective top 10, so we can only take the month from when the homepage was archived at Web.archive.org. For the 2010s, only a few podcasts of the chart are missing. For example, in one, the host Andreea Berghea says that "Dream Girl" by Smiley (see September 2011) topped the chart for 4 total weeks, however, they do not say when it first reached number one and there is no podcast available (anymore) to search that in. So we can only know the month the song first reached number one since we know charts were issued weekly. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - perfectly reasonable. I have another question, why are the year dates all centered the full dates aligned at the left? ~ HAL333 13:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: I just think it's more aesthetically pleasing to have short(er) dates or numbers centered. This why the references and the weeks at number one are also centered. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Not to bother you, but have your concerns/questions actually been solved? If you're busy, feel free to disregard. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I appreciate the reminder. After another check over its content, I Support. ~ HAL333 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Paparazzzi edit

Resolved comments from Paparazzzi (talk)
Comments

Expect a review soon.Paparazzzi (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you know anything about this website? That source is included on the "Hot n Cold" article, which is interesting because it was the most played song of 2009 but its peak position is not documented. --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you should clarify that the chart was not updated from certain periods of times, being that the reason why it lacks some archives; I realised that most archives from late 2008-early 2009 show the 16 June 2008 edition of the chart, while most archives from early 2010 show the 13 September 2009 chart.--Paparazzzi (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paparazzzi: I have also noticed this when expanding this article. However, I think this is just the issue of the archiving website, it often glitches when the website to be archived has drop-down lists to select from. I'm just talking from my own experience. This site, for example, can also not be archived properly although it's updated weekly. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005, the number of radio stations involved was 120.[4] As of 2004, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show which initially emerged from a partnership with Bravo.[5] " Chronologically incorrect.Paparazzzi (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to name everything important surrounding the chart's compilation in the first few sentences. And an important fact is the number of radio stations involved. Then, the next sentences are about the chart's announcement and history etc. I think this is way more structured, but in case you insist, I can make the change. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct the dates for early 2007 entries: "Illegal" by Shakira ascended to number one on 22 January 2007, and stayed there for two weeks more, then "Smack That" climbed to number one on 12 February, and "Illegal" ascended to the summit again on 19 February. Then there's an archive from the 5 March edition that shows that "Illegal" has climbed to number one again and that "Smack That" has fallen from number one to five... Please correct the dates for both "Illegal" and "Smack That". Based on that last archive you could conclude that "Smack That" spent a second week at number one on 26 February; add this to the list as well. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Say It Right" ascended to number one on 19 March. It climbed again to number one on 4 June, which means that "What Goes Around..." by Justin did not reach the top in June, but in the last week of May.Paparazzzi (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relax" by Mika reached number one on 15 October.Paparazzzi (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paparazzzi: I have included a note in the lead regarding the fact that the website was unupdated at times. And also, many thanks for the archives that you (somehow) found :) Greets and thanks for the comments; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to say about this nomination, my comments have been addressed, I have reviewed the sources and everything is fine, the prose is well-written. So I support this nomination. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)
Comments
  • I am uncertain about the "As of 2004" wording in this part: (As of 2004, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show). The wording implies to me that it is 2004 to the present, but that is not true since the chart is no longer active and has been replaced with something else. I would revise this part to avoid this misreading.
If the chart was still running, it would say "the chart is" instead of "the chart was". However, I do get your point. Maybe you have a better wording, cause I can't come up with anything at the moment?
To be fair, I am probably over-thinking it. Maybe something like (Start in 2004, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show)? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I implemented that, this suggestion seems to be fitting. Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may just be me, but for this part, (which initially emerged from a partnership with Bravo.), I would add something in the prose to clarify what Bravo is. May something like: (which initially emerged from a partnership with teen magazine Bravo.)?
  • I would link The Magician in the lead and image caption.
  • I am uncertain about the word "acts" in this part: (The most successful acts were Madonna and Kylie Minogue with). I think something like "artists" would work better here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Done everything apart from the comment. Thank you very much for your input :) Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for promotion. Great work with the list! Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review – While I can't read Romanian-language sources, the reliability of the references appears to be okay, as is the formatting. The link-checker shows no problems, so I'd call the source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 6 June 2020 (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_Romanian_Top_100_number_ones/archive1&oldid=962598018"