Template:Did you know nominations/Enamorado Por Primera Vez and List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1997

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BuySomeApples (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Enamorado Por Primera Vez, List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1997

  • Reviewed: pending
  • Comment: Enamorado Por Primera Vez achieved GA status and List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1997 was expanded 5 fivefold

Created/expanded by Magiciandude (talk). Self-nominated at 22:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

  • Review by Tbhotch

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Below

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: @Magiciandude: *insert confused screams*. The hook says that Enamorado charted for "11 weeks"; the article lists 10 weeks, and the source says 12 weeks. Also, in May 24, you sourced May 3. I don't see any major problem with "Enamorado" itself. (CC) Tbhotch 23:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Magiciandude this is why it is important to source the full reference. Tbhotch the source is correct, in fact there were a number of charts this appeared on. You are looking at the Hot Latin Songs chart for the 12 week figure, which is correct. The article no longer references anything that is 10 weeks long, but the actual thing that is being referenced is the the Latin Pop Airplay charts, which is indeed 11 weeks. The reference is Lannert, John (27 December 1997). "Latin Notas". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media. 109 (52): 54. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: My key problem still that the lead and the source say it peaked for 11 weeks. The article, however, only lists 10 weeks, from February 8 to April 12. If it recharted later is not said. (CC) Tbhotch 16:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch I must be missing something, where in that article does it mention that date range? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: The table. (CC) Tbhotch 16:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I’m the world’s most unobservant reviewer! I just noticed that two articles were nominated. Yowsers! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There has been no response to this review, the two QPQs needed for a two-article nomination have still not been supplied, and no edits made to address the issues despite multiple pings over the past five weeks. If the QPQs have not been supplied and the issues addressed within the next seven days, the nomination will be marked for closure unless clear progress is being made. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The nominator indicated on their talk page that they do not have access to the internet; their last edit was on July 19th and the articles have still not received the necessary edits. If the nominator can return the nomination can resume, but for now, as it has been over a week since BlueMoonset's comments and the issues remain unaddressed, this is marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)