Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)/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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [1].
I am listing this here at FLC because I feel it meets the criteria, having been edited extensively and peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, meets WP:WIAFL. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Why terms linked in the caption, when they are already linked in the lead and the table?
- I see no problem with it. Its just that they are linked because they're in the lead. And it has been a sort of guideline to have links in the table. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with the linking in the lead or table. I don't see why they are necessary in the captions either. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same query above. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "there were 11 singles that topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine" No comma after "chart".
- Is it superfluous? I think it has sense? --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a grammar thing. Don't put the comma after the main clause when a dependent clause follows. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I have checked my guide. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest."-->During the year, nine acts achieved a first US number-one single as a lead artist or featured guest.
- Used each for clarity, and per PR. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "either as lead artist or featured guest." Why is this phrase repeated at the end of the second paragraph?
- Because Sean Paul is only a featured guest in "Baby Boy". --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "longer than any single to have topped this year"-->longer than any single to top that year
- "to have topped", IMO, is a better phrasing. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hip hop duo"-->Hip-hop duo
- hip-hop and hip hop are acceptable. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "three
weeksof which "
- For clarity again? Unless its redundant. I would be happy to remove it. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is redundant. Look at the larger context: "nine consecutive weeks, three weeks of which" What else could you be talking about? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, removed. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "at number one combining "In the Club" and "21 Questions"."-->at number one with "In the Club" and "21 Questions".
- Clarity again. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "to have topped the chart"-->to top the chart
- Per above. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "which charted for eight straight weeks in summer" Don't use seasons; use months instead.
Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed as suggested. But I see no problem with it, actually. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Only pending issue is the about.com thing above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note An IP editor has left a comment on the article article's talk page that states the images squeeze the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on the screen resolution of his computer. --Efe (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With regard to the references. The publisher date goes "year-month-date", but the retrieve date goes "date-month-year". — R2 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how the template is formatted, I think. --Efe (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. — R2 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All good. — R2 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright if we move the list to "List of..." as a couple other lists have been moved now? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it has been agreed in a discussion on the project's page. Go ahead and thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Letting you know here that I will move your other lists too so that the precedent is clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually raised a discussion at the project's talk page for others to generate a guide in the moving of these lists. --Efe (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I left comments over there; if nobody raises a concern I will probably move the other pages by the end of the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I left comments over there; if nobody raises a concern I will probably move the other pages by the end of the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually raised a discussion at the project's talk page for others to generate a guide in the moving of these lists. --Efe (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Letting you know here that I will move your other lists too so that the precedent is clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.