Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, here's my 21st nomination in this series. In this particular year in the R&B charts it was all about the dance craze, as everyone was twisting the night away doing the mashed potato. Feedback as ever most gratefully received :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Very minor, but suggest using {{nowrap|chart-topper}} to avoid line breaks for hyphenated words. (for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices)
• Should The 4 Seasons be sorted first since you listed it as a numeric and not as The Four Seasons?
• That's all I have. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• {{color|gray|1964}} (in the navbox) answers a question I had about navboxes ... thanks for that.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I found nothing to copyedit. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. No problems.
• 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.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Source review, spot checks not done. Version reviewed:

• Suggest archiving all links using IABot.
• No other concerns.

Image review:

• No licencing concerns.
• Alt text used, no px concerns.

Support due to no sourcing or image concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.