Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pendulum discography


 * 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 User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008.

Pendulum discography
I am nominating this discography because I believe it to be complete and well-referenced, and because I feel it now satisfies all featured list criteria. The list had a peer review about two months ago – Ikara talk → 11:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - my review was addressed and it now meets WP:WIAFL. +Your welcome :)-- TRU CO 17:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for all the reasons given above, but especiailly for the missing directors. Writing unknown might be ok for one entry, but for half of them it clearly does not meet "comprehensive", no matter if finding the director is not a simple websearch. Sometimes getting featured content requires more hard work - there is no way that this info is inherently uncitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by yobmod (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I have also addressed your concerns with the article now, the missing directors have all been added. If you can find any other issues holding this article back from FL status I would be grateful. All the best – Ikara talk → 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. Support.Yobmod (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Support All my issues were resolved at the peer review, and the article now meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question What makes rolldabeats.com a reliable source? I couldn't find much info on it on the main page. It looks questionable to me, and since you rely so heavily on it in your citations, it's kind of a make-or-break issue for me. Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rolldabeats is a database compiled by a small team of volunteers in a fashion similar to IMDb, however unlike IMDb no information is directly submitted by the general public. New data and corrections can be proposed by various people, including the artists, via the forums or email, but are only published on the website after they have been verified by one member of the team. As such I believe Rolldabeats to be reliable as a tertiary source for the purpose of citing track listings as in the article currently. An alternative for the article would be to cite the liner notes of each release instead, which would be considered reliable but prevents readers from easily verifying the information. My preference would be to use Rolldabeats, but if you disagree that it is reliable then I can change the citations as appropriate – Ikara talk → 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Use the liner notes in addition to Rolldabeats. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, the article now references the liner notes of the releases directly where appropriate, and then provides the Rolldabeats for support. Hopefully that should address any concerns over the reliability of the references in the article. Thanks for the suggestion – Ikara talk → 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, but the one use of it still bothers me. I see what your saying about how info is added to the cite, but it's not just important that it seems "reliable" in quotes, but satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "reliable".  I'm not so sure it does.  Also, along the same lines, mvdbase.com is not considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the one remaining reference that uses rolldabeats directly, or the use of it to support the other references? I could probably remove the one reference (I overlooked it when changing the others) but I feel that we should keep the rolldabeats links with the other references. The mvdbase.com reference was a replacement for this reference which I was unsure about the reliability of. I expect I can find a substitute reference shortly. Thanks – Ikara talk → 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Support – Looks good. =) Canniba  loki  02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "radio mixes" are not needed, and that Remixes and misc would look better combined. If that is done, i would support this as being inline with other discog. FLs. Dillypickle (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections have been merged, sort of, and I have removed the "radio mixes" section – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.