Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2016)/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) 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2016)

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links
Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second Inkigayo winners list. This list is based on the 2015 list which is a featured list. -- EN-Jungwon 03:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Nine artists ranked more than one single on the chart in 2016" => "Nine artists had more than one number one in 2016"
  • "The three groups went on to rank another single on the chart in 2016." => "The three groups all went on to have another number one in 2016."
  • "Both groups ranked number one for six weeks each" => "Both groups ranked number one for six weeks"
  • "I.O.I formed through the first season of the survival reality show Produce 101, achieved" => "I.O.I, formed through the first season of the survival reality show Produce 101, achieved" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude done. Thanks again. -- EN-Jungwon 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)s[reply]
Image review

Otherwise, image placement, licence and ALT text are passable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus the file has already been reviewed by a reviewer on commons, so is this still an issue? -- EN-Jungwon 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that the source link should work, so that folks can check whether it is accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I still feel like the whole point of an image review is to let people know that the image does have an acceptable license. I have gone ahead and changed the image to one with a live source. One more thing. I used imagmap for the images of groups to link to individual artists Wikipedia articles. Is this allowed/acceptable or is there a specific policy regarding this? Will this cause any accessibility issues? -- EN-Jungwon 11:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know much about accessibility issues. Perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility? I don't think there is a particular issue with the imagemap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh

This has been waiting on a source review for a while so I'm giving it my best shot. Note that I used translated pages and assumed good faith on translations at times, given that I don't speak the language.

Source review: Passed

  • Link checker shows no issues: Passed
    • Refs. 12 and 15 – Currently redirect to another link, please bypass these redirects
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited: Passed
  • Consistent date formatting: Passed
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting: Passed
    • I'm assuming good faith on a few authors, as they don't match up exactly when translated, but that's not unexpected when translating names.
    • Refs. 6, 12, 13 – Refer to the same website, make them consistent
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable - Passed
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for: Passed (based on translations)
  • Other comments:
    • Is there any reason you use Naver instead of bypassing it to go to the source site when available? One example of this is ref. 8 which has a link in it to the source material. It's not a deal breaker by any means, but I'm curious.

Great stuff as always EN-Jungwon, I had to dig a bit to actually find things to critique. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, all done except wikilinking Herald POP. I think you had mixed up this list with the 2015 list. About using Naver; I mainly use it cause it loads faster and due to the lack of advertisements (sometimes they are a bit annoying). Using Naver has been discussed at Wikiproject Korea. The original source is preffered but using Naver is not strictly prohibited. Thanks for the quick review. -- EN-Jungwon 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's super strange that I caught Herald Pop from the other list, I did have it open for comparison, and commented on it here. The rest of my review seems to be applicable to this article, so just the one line I supposed. No problem about Naver, I can see it's rehosting the content and you have the proper via parameter filled in, so I'm not bothered there! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 21:27, 1 March 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Inkigayo_Chart_winners_(2016)/archive1&oldid=1211329555"