Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1967/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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1967

Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1967/archive1

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest nomination in this series. In this particular year, Frank Sinatra continued to be the top performer on the chart and unusually not one but two number ones did so poorly at top 40 radio that they didn't enter Billboard's pop chart, the Hot 100, at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824

" "Cold" was the final number one of the year and would prove to be Gary's only Easy Listening chart-topper and his final entry on either that listing or the Hot 100" - A few sentences before this it is mentioned that Cold didn't reach the Hot100 at all.
- @MPGuy2824: Correct, but he had other songs which did. My point is that it was his last song to appear on either chart i.e. he never charted again on either chart. If the wording could be made clearer, let me know -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would "last entry on any Billboard chart" do? Assuming that is accurate, of course. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is then I would technically have to source that he didn't chart on any of the dozens of other charts Billboard publishes (I am reasonably certain he didn't, but technically I would need to prove his absence from every single one of them since 1968). How about something like "After Cold, he would not have another easy listening or pop chart entry".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, its a problem to prove a negative. Reading only your suggested sentence, it still sounds like the song was in the pop chart too. Since this piece of info (regarding him never being on the pop charts after 1967) isn't related to this list anyway, maybe you could leave it out OR wait for another reviewer to give a better suggestion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast to the song by the Sinatras which was both an easy listening and pop number one, two singles in 1967 reached number one on the Easy Listening chart but failed to enter the Hot 100 at all. Both "It's Such a Pretty World Today" by Andy Russell and "Cold" by John Gary were Easy Listening chart-toppers but did not achieve sufficient crossover success to even reach number 100 on the Hot 100." - A lot of overlap in these two sentences. Maybe consider a merge.
- @MPGuy2824: - tweaked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion, since the only issue left is minor. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the contentious sentence to "after it exited the Easy Listening chart he never achieved another entry on either that listing or the Hot 100". I genuinely don't believe this reads as saying that "Cold" was also a pop hit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

In 1967, Billboard magazine published a chart ... The chart, which in 1967 was entitled ... In 1967, 18 songs topped the chart based -- I think the 2nd and third instances of mentioning the year 1967 could be tweaked, or perhaps just the third instance only, since it is assumed that 18 songs topped the chart that year.
That's all I have. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

File:Ed Ames.JPG - uses fixed px, consider "upright"
Images all have alt text
Images are appropriately licensed
Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

Reliable enough for the information being cited
Consistent date formatting
Consistent and proper reference formatting
Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing. Great work as always Chris! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

Support. I don't have any improvement suggestions. I'm satisfied that this candidate meets the FL criteria. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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