Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1944/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) 00:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1944

List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1944/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the third nomination for a list of number ones on what Billboard considers to be the earliest iteration of its R&B chart. Interestingly, in this year the magazine launched what it considers to be the earliest iteration of its country chart, and two songs were both "R&B" and "country" number ones......75 years before "Old Town Road"! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• For this part, an area noted for its
  African American
  population which has been called the "black capital of America", I would replace "which" with "and". I believe that "which" makes it sound like the population is being called this rather than the district.
• Would it be beneficial to link Rhythm and blues in this part, the lineage of the magazine's multimetric R&B chart? Other genres are linked in the second and third paragraphs.
• Shouldn't this part, which since 2005 has been published under the title
  Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs
  , have a citation?

My comments are relatively minor. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Just out of curiosity, are you planning on bringing all the

@Aoba47: - all the above resolved. As for trying to get another 75+ articles to FLC........hmmmmmm, not sure. Let's wait and see :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That kind of project would be a lot of a lot for sure lol. Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. Best of luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly
  AGF
  on sourcing.
• "Cow-Cow Boogie (Cuma-Ti-Yi-Yi-Ay)" redirects to Cow-Cow Boogie.
• Checking the
  FLC criteria
  :
• 1. I couldn't find anything to fiddle with in the prose. The table coding seems fine. 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 article 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. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; fewer reviews than normal, but at this point this is a list factory so I'll let it keep chugging along and promote. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.