Talk:Mama (My Chemical Romance song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 08:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I'll take on this review, expect comments soon! FishLoveHam (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "when" → "after". -- Y Done
• "Produced by the band and Rob Cavallo, "Mama" was written by band members Bob Bryar, Frank Iero, Ray Toro, Gerard Way, and Mikey Way." kinda awkwardly worded, maybe try "The song was written by band members Bob Bryar, Frank Iero, Ray Toro, Gerard Way, and Mikey Way and was produced by the group in collaboration with Rob Cavallo". -- Y Reworded
• "The lyrics explore The Patient, the dying protagonist of The Black Parade, as he reminisces about his relationship with his mother" reword. -- Y Reworded

Background and recording

• The image caption is odd... It talks about how critics responded to her appearance, which is fine, just it doesn't fit the section. I think this image should either be moved down to "Critical reception" or the caption should be changed. -- Y Moved. The only downside is that it now interferes with the page's layout on the Legacy appearance, but that shouldn't be a problem for the average reader.
• "pieced together" be more specific. -- Y I personally prefer the conciseness of the previous wording, but I'm okay adding a bit more detail. I've also added a quote from the text.
• "and noted how "you can almost hear the haunted house in the background"" This doesn't add much, I think it should be removed. -- Y Removed
• The quote "voice to finally talk back to me" doesn't flow nicely, maybe "voice to [...] talk back" to him would be better? -- Y Fixed the flow, but without the bracketed ellipses per MOS:...

Composition and lyrics

• "spans" → "explores". -- Y I don't think that this is precisely the right word, but I also can't think of a different one other than "spans" or "moves" (which would clash with "movements")

Release

• Add a comma after the first "2006". -- Y I'm pretty sure it was grammatically correct as is, but I've shuffled the sentence around a bit to avoid the problem entirely.

Critical reception

• "released by the band" is repeated, reword for one of them. -- Y Done

References

• I strongly recommend adding archives for the web sources. -- Will add later, since this isn't part of the GA criteria

Spot check

• [1] Y
• [5] N Says the album was "partially written and recorded" there, not necessarily demoed as this article suggests. -- "Demoed" in this case is supposed to mean "written and recorded", as the song was presumably worked on while at the Paramour and a demo was recorded there. I've removed the source and changed the wording for clarity, in any case.
• [10] Y
• [13] Y
• [17] a. N nothing matches. b. Y Although more from the source could be added. -- The source calls the song a "polka-turned-heavy multi-movement journey", and thus supports the fact that the song contains multiple movements.
• [21] a. Y b. N c. Y -- Not sure why that was there for b, I've removed it
• [26] Y
• [32] Y
• [38] Y

Other

• Images: One fair use image, issue adressed above Y
• Broad & summary style: Fine Y
• Neutral: Balanced Y
• No OR/COPYVIO: Y Earwig's copyvio reported 25.9% in similarity
• Stable: Y

Ping when you're done!

@FishLoveHam: Thank you for the prompt review! I've gone ahead and fixed up most of what you've mentioned. The only evaluation of your which I disagreed with is for source #17 (now source #16, the Loudwire listicle), as it directly mentions the fact that the song contains multiple movements. I'll also get about archiving the sources on a different day when I have more time. Hopefully everything else looks good to you? Leafy46 (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Leafy46: I still don't really agree with the use of ref #16a, but I can see the argument and it's minor enough that I'm willing to overlook it. Great work on this article, you have done a fantastic job! FishLoveHam (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to review this article. Leafy46 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·