Talk:Demolition Lovers

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Demolition Lovers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 11:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• "it's runtime" / "through it's buildup" / "it's two separate parts" / "it's six-minute run time" / "it's effective changes"- "its"? :D
• "spree, and ultimately" - I don't think there's a need for the comma here?
• "Some considered ..., and others have considered ..." - "Some have considered ..., and others have deemed ..." matching the tense for consistency, and changing the verb to avoid repetitiveness
• "The is also considered representative of the more grand-scale songs that the band would create in the future. The song has also been noted as a fan favorite" - "It is also considered a representative of the more grand-scale songs that the band would create in the future and has been noted as a fan favorite"
• "drummer Matt Pelissier, guitarist Ray Toro, bassist Mikey Way, and later on guitarist Frank Iero" - add "the" before "drummer" / "guitarist" / "bassist" for WP:FALSETITLE consistency, and add comma after "and later on"
• "at the Prudential Center" - I think "at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey" would be beneficial
• Paste, Louder, and Alternative Press can be wikilinked at their first incidence
• "a previous track in the album" / "an earlier song in the album" - "on the album"?
• "Cassie Whitt" - "Cassie Whitt of Loudwire"?
• Add the Jesse Lord reference again after the "The former stated that ...." sentence

Refereneces from this revision

• Ref 5 is missing the author
  • This one is actually intentional. Since there are two sources in use here that are from 2014 and made by Tom Bryant, having the author on this one completely breaks the article's SFNs. So not having an author is a sort of band-aid solution.
• Ref 14 requires |url-status=live
• Ref 21 is missing the date
• Ref 21; Alternative Press Magazine - Alternative Press

Spotchecks

• Ref 1 - OK
• Ref 5 - OK
• Ref 6(b) - OK
• Ref 8 - OK
• Ref 10 - OK
• Ref 11(c) - OK
• Ref 13(a) - OK
• Ref 13(d) - OK
• Ref 15(b) - OK
• Ref 15(d) - OK
• Ref 16(c) - OK
• Ref 18(b) - OK
• Ref 19(c) - OK
• Ref 20(b) - OK
• Ref 21 - OK

Hi NegativeMP1, I saw you're planning on a future GTC so thought I could help :) Good work on the article overall, I'll put this On hold for now. Medxvo (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: Thank you for the quick review! I've addressed all of the above comments unless stated otherwise. λ NegativeMP1 16:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: The first two points aren't addressed or discussed, I believe ...? I've also just made an edit here, replacing two misplaced references and linking two publications, I hope that's okay. Medxvo (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed those two. The second one is addressed now, but I'm confused by the first one. Using " it's " in this scenario is grammatically correct. λ NegativeMP1 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't "it's" a contraction of "it is" or "it has"? I think it should be "throughout its runtime", "through its buildup", "due to its two separate parts", "of its six-minute run time", "well captured by its effective changes"... because "its" is a possessive form of "it" here in these examples, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Medxvo (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, looking at it further, you are infact correct about this specific instance. I've replaced them all. So that comment is now addressed. λ NegativeMP1 21:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Passing now, good work on the article again and best of luck with the future GTC :)) Medxvo (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Demolition Lovers

I'm listing this article for peer review because I am looking to take it to FAC in the semi-near future. I'm looking to work out any kinks prior to that, and also make sure the article has FA potential to begin with. While I do already have a song FA to take references from that also went to peer review prior to FAC, I think it's the best move to do it for this one as well to make sure the ground is stable and I don't jump into things. Still hesitant from how badly my first song FAC went.

Thanks, λ NegativeMP1 22:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

• @NegativeMP1: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Nub098765

Hi! I just wanted to point out a few stylistic prose things I noticed in the article:

• "six-minute long" — Since all three words modify the succeeding phrase, they would all be hyphenated together: "six-minute-long".
• "ultimately resulting an abrupt stop that leads into the bridge." — I presume it is supposed to be "ultimately resulting in an abrupt stop that leads into the bridge"?
• "two lovers that go on a crime spree" — Both lovers are humans (presumably) so it would be "two lovers who go on a crime spree".
• "Alessandra Schade of Alternative Press described it a 'slow, eerie guitar riff'." — the "described it a" structure is one I've certainly used before, so I see why you have, but to my knowledge, strictly speaking, it is an error. I'd add the missing "as" just in case.
• "frentic verses" — "frenetic"?
• "six minutes run-time" — "six-minute run-time"?
• "more to akin to a film rather than a song." — "more akin to"?
• "his lovers death repeatedly." — I assume you're referring to the death of his lover, in which case it would be "his lover's".
• "that made good use of it's six-minute run time" — "its"?
• "It was produced by Geoff Rickly." — This is purely subjective, but to me this sentence feels abrupt. Its contents seem to be able to blend easily into the preceding sentence, so I would personally write "...to begin recording their first studio album, I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, which was produced by Geoff Rickly."
• "Rickly produced it" — Isn't that implied by him producing the album?
• "At the 2:50 mark" — "mark" feels informal to my ears. Perhaps just "At 2:50" or "At 2 minutes and 50 seconds"?
• "the song is an analogy on Gerard Way's willingness to die for his loved ones based on the text present in the album's inlay" — I feel like "on" isn't the best preposition to use with "analogy". Perhaps it's "for"? Also, "present" is superfluous.

Otherwise, the prose has that distinctive quality I've noticed about few other articles where it's elegant but encyclopedically elegant, using literary structures in ways that present no subjective ideas. Great job. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about music articles to comment on sourcing, so this is where my good-faith comments stop. So there you go! Hope these comments can be of help! nub :) 06:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! I addressed all of the above comments. Admittedly a lot of them are probably just grammar mistakes from me typing fast enough to where my keyboard doesn't register specific keys. That happens sometimes... λ NegativeMP1 08:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been inactive for a month; closing per WP:CLOSEPR. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)