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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [1].

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)[edit]

Nominator(s): Efe (talk)

Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I feel it meets the criteria. Thanks, Efe (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
~~Weak Oppose/~~Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Mainly due to sourcing. Singer Ashanti was the first act to have achieved the feat with "Always on Time", as a featured guest. -- Note the original composer. Mentioned lead artist. --Efe (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Singer Kelly Rowland, then-member of the girl group Destiny's Child, scored her first number-one solo single with "Dilemma", a song by rapper Nelly, who also had his first number one with "Hot in Herre" in this year. -- Would be better worded as 'Singer Kelly Rowland, then-member of the girl group Destiny's Child, scored her first number-one solo single with "Dilemma", a song by rapper Nelly, who received his first number-one with "Hot in Herre" during this year.' Revised as suggested. --Efe (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] In 2002, only three acts had two number-one singles, namely Ja Rule, Ashanti, and Nelly. -- How about 'In 2002, only three acts had two number-one singles: Ja Rule, Ashanti, and Nelly.' Revised. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Most of the number-one singles in 2000 were extended chart-toppers. -- I think you mean 2001? Its 2002. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The word scored is used a lot, I would use it interchangeably with 'earned' Only three times. Removed one. --Efe (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] References The main problem is that all the sources come from Billboard. Variety is needed from which the information is cited from.--TRU CO 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Variety of sources is not required in FLCs. Only the reliability and verifiability. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. So at least one or two other primary/tertiary/secondary source should be used, such as a newspaper or other reliable source.--TRU CO 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Set up a discussion here. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] See my comment there, maybe that will help clear up what I meant.--TRU CO 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think you misinterpreted my comment, I never stated Billboard was unreliable or whether what type of part source it was. All articles need refs from just one publishing source, per WP:RS, (as I stated above and transcluded the text from there). If you just add at least 1 or 2 source(s) from another location to verify something that can replace 1 Billboard citation, then the referencing will be up to speed.--TRU CO 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] OK. I'll try to add if I can find one or two. This debate has gone way too long. --Efe (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Added one from Yahoo! --Efe (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

~~Weak Oppose/~~Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Mainly due to sourcing.

Singer Ashanti was the first act to have achieved the feat with "Always on Time", as a featured guest. -- Note the original composer.

Mentioned lead artist. --Efe (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Kelly Rowland, then-member of the girl group Destiny's Child, scored her first number-one solo single with "Dilemma", a song by rapper Nelly, who also had his first number one with "Hot in Herre" in this year. -- Would be better worded as 'Singer Kelly Rowland, then-member of the girl group Destiny's Child, scored her first number-one solo single with "Dilemma", a song by rapper Nelly, who received his first number-one with "Hot in Herre" during this year.'

Revised as suggested. --Efe (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2002, only three acts had two number-one singles, namely Ja Rule, Ashanti, and Nelly. -- How about 'In 2002, only three acts had two number-one singles: Ja Rule, Ashanti, and Nelly.'

Revised. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the number-one singles in 2000 were extended chart-toppers. -- I think you mean 2001?

Its 2002. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word scored is used a lot, I would use it interchangeably with 'earned'

Only three times. Removed one. --Efe (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

The main problem is that all the sources come from Billboard. Variety is needed from which the information is cited from.--TRU CO 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety of sources is not required in FLCs. Only the reliability and verifiability. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. So at least one or two other primary/tertiary/secondary source should be used, such as a newspaper or other reliable source.--TRU CO 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set up a discussion here. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment there, maybe that will help clear up what I meant.--TRU CO 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpreted my comment, I never stated Billboard was unreliable or whether what type of part source it was. All articles need refs from just one publishing source, per WP:RS, (as I stated above and transcluded the text from there). If you just add at least 1 or 2 source(s) from another location to verify something that can replace 1 Billboard citation, then the referencing will be up to speed.--TRU CO 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try to add if I can find one or two. This debate has gone way too long. --Efe (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added one from Yahoo! --Efe (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RU CӨ 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues" Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same (9, 52 or nine, fifty-two). MOS states: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty‑two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." There are no comparable quantities in this article. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nine singles, 51 issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] So these are comparable entities? Not sure, though. MoS is not clear, or perhaps give little examples. --Efe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] It is rather awkward to go from numerals to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's not entities that are being compared, but quantities. It doesn't matter if it's cats and dogs, or cats and television sets. It's either 5 cats and 32 TVs, or five cats and thirty-two TVs. You either have to write "Although nine singles reached number one in fifty-two issues" or "Although 9 singles reached number-1 in 52 issues". You should probably go for the former, because you write all the other numbers as words in the rest of the prose. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] number-1 is rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Changed to all words. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Singer Ashanti was the first act to have achieved the feat" Simplify the tense: "Singer Ashanti was the first act to achieve the feat" Rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Whoops, fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] How is it now? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] "they become the first " Wrong tense. Oops. Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] ", ~~which is~~ the soundtrack to the 2002 film 8 Mile" Unnecessary. "52-to-one"-->52-to-1 Should be in words, per MOS. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comparable quantities should be written the same. It looks awkward to go from numbers to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] "number 27 to one"-->number 27 to 1. Same thing. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comparable quantities should be written the same. It looks awkward to go from numbers to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running single of 2002." Do you mean "Rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running number-one single of 2002."? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed caption. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues" Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same (9, 52 or nine, fifty-two).

MOS states: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty‑two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." There are no comparable quantities in this article. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine singles, 51 issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So these are comparable entities? Not sure, though. MoS is not clear, or perhaps give little examples. --Efe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather awkward to go from numerals to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entities that are being compared, but quantities. It doesn't matter if it's cats and dogs, or cats and television sets. It's either 5 cats and 32 TVs, or five cats and thirty-two TVs. You either have to write "Although nine singles reached number one in fifty-two issues" or "Although 9 singles reached number-1 in 52 issues". You should probably go for the former, because you write all the other numbers as words in the rest of the prose. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

number-1 is rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to all words. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Singer Ashanti was the first act to have achieved the feat" Simplify the tense: "Singer Ashanti was the first act to achieve the feat"

Rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"they become the first " Wrong tense.

Oops. Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

", ~~which is~~ the soundtrack to the 2002 film 8 Mile" Unnecessary.
"52-to-one"-->52-to-1

Should be in words, per MOS. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable quantities should be written the same. It looks awkward to go from numbers to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"number 27 to one"-->number 27 to 1.

Same thing. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparable quantities should be written the same. It looks awkward to go from numbers to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running single of 2002." Do you mean "Rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running number-one single of 2002."? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed caption. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues of the magazine in the calendar year, two of which began their peak position in 2001, and are thus excluded. is not a proper sentence. The bit inbetween the commas act as if its in parentheses, so without that part, the sentence is "Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues of the magazine in the calendar year and are thus excluded." which doesn't make any sense.

Removed the last comma. The first one is grammatical. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard Hot 100 is a chart that... →→ The Billboard Hot 100 is a record chart that...

I think the word record is carried out in this phrase "the best-performing singles". --Efe (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2002 is an Easter egg. Try to use the full titled link instead

Its rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May it be worth linking to calendar year?
- I think that "calendar" is redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then-member reads awful

Is it grammatically amiss? --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"number one" vs "number-one": Be consistent (I think the latter is more correct)
- No, "number one" is the noun version (so-and-so reached number one) but "number-one" is used as a compound adjective (she achieved a number-one single for the second time that year). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the number-one singles in 2002 were extended chart-toppers. what does this mean? The songs are 5-minutes long?

extended chart-topper'. I think its clear. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same with "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running single

Its clear. I think music articles are just too different from other articles here WP. That phrasing is widely used. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hot in Herre" and "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez →→ "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez and "Hot in Herre"

Fixed because its ambiguous. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Lose Yourself" part of the "Rock era"? It's a rap song

Its regardless of the genre of the song. Rock era began in 1955 up to now. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table entries are verified and correct.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:14, 1 March 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.