Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Top Selling R&B Singles number ones of 1967/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, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Top Selling R&B Singles number ones of 1967 edit

List of Top Selling R&B Singles number ones of 1967 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest (#25) nomination in this series. In this particular year it was all about Aretha, the Queen of Soul. Feedback as ever gratefully received and quickly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • The most successful artist of the year in chart terms was Aretha Franklin -- perhaps we can remove in chart terms, since the article is about chart performances that year and is also followed by the number of weeks she spent on it.
  • Later in the year, Franklin gained her third chart-topper of the year -- perhaps the second mention of year can be removed - as 1967 is also mentioned in the latter sentence.
  • That's all from me. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: - done. Thanks for your kind words! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "She is regarded by some as one of the greatest singers of all time and nicknamed the "Queen of Soul"": The main problem I have with any sentence equivalent to "X is the best" is that you can generally find a source that likes "X" for any "X", so sentences like this are usually nonfalsifiable and ambiguous. Can you say something about what set her apart, or mention some "best of" list that she's on that carried some weight? Also: I think I'd start the sentence with "Nicknamed the "Queen of Soul", she ...".
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Otherwise, the writing looks good. 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) 02:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • For File:Aaron Neville.jpg, why is the caption "in later life" rather than a specific date? The description places him at a 1999 event, and I think that year would be more beneficial as the current wording limits room for ambiguity as "in later life" could mean a number of different dates.
  • Link David Browne (journalist) and Douglas Wolk in their citation.

Everything looks good to me. I only have two minor comments. Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC on the basis of its prose. If you have the time and energy, I would appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, which is about a more contemporary R&B song. However, if that is not possible, I completely understand. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses! Everything looks good to me, and I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source and image reviews, and support, from BennyOnTheLoose edit

Images

  • Licencing all OK.
  • Images are elevant, adequately clear, suitably positioned, with alt text.
  • Appropriate captions supported either with inline citations in the text or by the table.

Sources

  • No issues with suitablity of sources.
  • No formatting issues to be resolved as far as I can see.
  • one of the biggest stars not only in black music but across all genres - what part of the source supports this? (Source does say, e.g. "one of the biggest international recording stars in all of pop", but I don't think that's quite the same)
  • Nothing alarming found from reviewing the top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No other questions from the sources I looked at; they all supported the content without plagiarism or paraphrasing issues.

General comments

  • first and only chart-topper - "first and" is redundant, but could be kept for flow of prose.
  • In 1967, Billboard published a chart ranking - is it worth adding that this was weekly?
  • I made a couple of really minor script-suggested tweaks, please revert any that are objectionable.
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_Top_Selling_R%26B_Singles_number_ones_of_1967/archive1&oldid=1156255794"