Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1969/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) 00:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1969 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With 43 of these lists now promoted to FL status and one having multiple supports which will complete the 1970s, it's time to start on the 1960s, a far superior decade for country music in my humble opinion...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't so much errors, but my personal preference
- Hot Country Singles, in 52 issues of the magazine - I would insert weekly after 52, it makes a little more clear
- In the issue of Billboard dated January 4 - I would reword it as "the January 4 issue", it's a little awkward
- which spent five weeks at number one, and his total of eleven weeks atop the chart in 1969 was the highest by any artist - I would split that sentence in two separate sentences
- his total of eleven weeks atop the chart in 1969 was the highest by any artist - You should clarify that. Was it the highest in 1969 or in the history of the chart? I would also say "cumulative" rather than total
- All three of James's chart-toppers - just James' per [2]
- If you wanted to expand the lede you could mention Tammy Wynette and Conway Twitty, as they both had two #1's that year.
- I hope those were helpful. It's a good article overall. ~ HAL333 00:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, I have acted upon them. I haven't changed the bit about "issue dated January 4", as it almost certainly didn't actually physically come out on that date, and I think saying "issue dated January 4" is less ambiguous. Hope that's OK....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the January 4 thing makes sense now.
- Thanks for your comments, I have acted upon them. I haven't changed the bit about "issue dated January 4", as it almost certainly didn't actually physically come out on that date, and I think saying "issue dated January 4" is less ambiguous. Hope that's OK....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. ~ HAL333 15:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.