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)[reply]

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

• "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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]