This review is transcluded from Talk:I'm Not Okay (I Promise)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm picking up your nomination! As always, this is a list of suggestions you can tweak it further and then introduce into the article. Alternatively, we can discuss suggestions that aren't particularly useful. I went through the article tweaking small, one-word things/punctuation. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the quick pick-up on this article! Please do take your time with this review, and let me know whenever you've finished :) Leafy46 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much finished and waiting for you to bounce-back at me with suggestions/questions/etc. It's late evening for me, I'll probably check the page another time tomorrow. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LastJabberwocky: I've made a few edits to the tweaks you've done yourself, mostly about grammar or stylistic choices (e.g. not liking one-sentence paragraphs, or using "Credits and personnel" instead of just "Personnel" — both work, but I've historically used the former in my other articles). I've also placed a few comments regarding some of your concerns, along with my rationale if I've chosen to not apply them; let me know if you believe otherwise on any of these points, and as you've said we can always discuss further! Leafy46 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: ok, now in the morning I'm hopefully more sharp and will explain some points better. I already noticed a couple misinterpretations on my part. Also I get the sense it would better for me to discuss everything here and for your to decide on the changes, dodging the edit war. The third important point. The third important point is—my job is to really carefully scan (sometimes obnoxiously nitpicking) every possible aspect of the article. I have my thing I like to do with a text and you got your things. How to get a consensus? I guess I'll explain my positions one more time, where its seems more objective and not only about my personal preferences, and if the explanation are not persuasive enough, we'll side with your things because you're the article's main contributor. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LastJabberwocky: I've gone through your new comments, and they are definitely a lot clearer this time around! I've tried to incorporate your suggestions (both in my initial edits of your tweaks and in the comments you've left below), but I've also left a few new comments of my own if I disagree with your proposed changes. Thank you for spending the time here to thoroughly explain your suggestions, is there anything else which needs to be addressed? Leafy46 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be honest when I say that I'm not really a big fan of some of the new changes you've made below; I'll explain them more in their respective sections below. I'll integrate your changes as best I can, but it's probably going to end up being a pretty big reversion as a whole due to a combination of adding run-on sentences or informal language (e.g. "MCR" instead of "My Chemical Romance"), and making edits that change the meaning of a sentence away from how they are represented in the sources. I'd appreciate it if you left your concerns on this review page for me to deal with, especially since I'm completely in the dark on how this review should proceed from here. Leafy46 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Leafy46|talk]]) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Leafy46: I took another pause to get a clearer, emotionless picture, and your version seems good as it seemed in the ~middle of this review, but you won me over to like it more. In any case I honestly think we improved the things that really needed be improved, and the rest was just a little present I wanted for myself. We have finished! LastJabberwocky (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Later, after My Chemical Romance had finished writing the majority of the album, Aaronson and Benson stumbled on a vocal line six minutes into a demo that the band had previously recorded; both insisted that the band should work on it. → After My Chemical Romance had finished writing the majority of the album, Aaronson and Benson stumbled on a vocal line from the band's demo recordings, and both insisted the band should work on it.

• I don't think it is relevant that the producers stumbled into the song six minutes into the demo. —  Addressed: Changed to "midway", as backed up in the biography

they continued to flesh out the song into "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)", with My Chemical Romance biographer Tom Bryant noting how the band was "experimenting with it and seeing just how far they could push the boundaries" of its punk sound. → experimenting to see "just how far they could push the boundaries" of its punk sound.

• more straightforward. I don't think this sentence was too opinionated to include the name of the biographer. —  Addressed: I've removed the reference to Bryant

There to additional things about the first two paragraphs:

1) My first thought was to suggest the removal of the first paragraph since it's details only the history of the album, but my guess is you included it as a hint when "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" could've been recorded. The album got started in 2003, thus the song was probably recorded in 2003-2004. The paragraph also at length details the history of Aaronson and Benson's involvement. My thinking: "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" page is in a way a subpage to the album article, and if the article details the history of the album's creation and Aaronson and Benson's involvement (and the album page should have the info detailed in the first paragraph), the song can have the minimum background info about the album

The window when the album was recorded.

Then simultaneous introduction of both Aaronson and Benson, AND everything directly related to the song. Something like: After My Chemical Romance had finished writing the majority of the album, the A&R man Craig Aaronson and the producer Howard Benson, both of whom worked with MCR during the recording of Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, discovered the MCR's previously unreleased demo and insisted the band should work on it.

These suggestions aren't necessarily corrections, because your version already works well without them, but I think it could be better. The broadness criteria isn't only about including all the relevant details, but paying attention to "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I'm suggesting ways to introduce the star of this section ("I'm Not Okay") as earlier as possible. —  Done: I've consolidated the two paragraphs to reduce some of the details related to the album itself

Another post scriptum, if you will be tweakin your version, I suggest to simplify "into a demo the band had previously recorded" as "into a previously unreleased demo". —  Not done Demos typically go unreleased, and there is nothing suggesting that this demo was ever primed for release, so "previously unreleased demo" doesn't make sense here

I see your point about the phrasing of unreleased demos. I reintegrated the "six minutes into the demo" line, learning/realizing the context behind the line from Louder Sound source: they heard a vocal line (or a chord progression) six minutes into the song on the demo that impressed them; not six minutes into the demo reel of bunch of songs, they heard a vocal line that would become "I'm Not Okay" (in the latter case the timing isn't that relevant because in the way read it the demo reel was a compilation of songs irrelevant to this article).

I'll try to integrate what you've inserted into the article, but I'm likely going to cut this down for the sake of clarity since the new wording is winding and a run-on sentence.

After the band returned to the studio, they continued to flesh out the song into "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" by "experimenting with it and seeing just how far they could push the boundaries" of its punk sound.. Another moment where I want to get picky (sorry). 1) The sentence "flesh out the song into "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)"—suggests that they already knew the final song (as if by time travel) and fleshed it out into something preditermedly specific. I think you should remove the word song, which would give us: "fleshed out 'I'm Not Okay (I Promise)' by experimenting with..." 2) The quote could be rephrased for clarity without the quotation marks: by experimenting and pushing the boundaries of its punk sound as far as they could. —  Done: I see what you mean. I've reduced the quote (given that the whole "pushing the boundaries" thing is a direct quote and thus can't be entirely removed w/o being plagiarism), and have re-ordered the sentence to hopefully alleviate the concern about the "time travel" thing

contains a guitar solo stylistically similar to Queen, featuring two guitar lines a harmonic third apart; Benson explained how the Queen influences on the band's subsequent album The Black Parade (2006), including its guitar parts and intricate vocal harmonies, were first prototyped on "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)". → features two guitar lines playing in harmonic thirds. The song contains a guitar solo stylistically similar to Queen, and Benson later confirmed that the Queen influence on MCR, in particular guitar parts and intricate vocal harmonies, were first prototyped on "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" and realized on the band's subsequent album The Black Parade (2006).

• Separated Queen and and harmonic thirds. As I understand reading sources, the harmonic third inclusion wasn't influenced by Queen? —  Not done: The two guitar lines a harmonic third apart *is* the guitar solo, so this change would be somewhat misleading, as it would imply that the two are separate things. I've re-worded the original to hopefully make the distinction more clear.
• Put "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" before The Black Parade for clarity. —  Done

and contains a guitar solo which has been stylistically compared to those by Queen, featuring two guitar lines a harmonic third apart; Benson explained how the Queen influences prototyped on "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)", including its guitar parts and intricate vocal harmonies, paved the way for their inclusion on the band's subsequent album, The Black Parade (2006). The thing about clarifications :), they are not necessarily required to understand a sentence, but they help to understand it the first reading it. This sentence is clear for, I read it a couple of times, and you explained it to me. I think it would better put without the subordinate interruption and explaining in a sentence what a harmonic third is. Also the comparison isn't stylistic, the relation between the solo and queen work is stylistically comparable. adding "in particular guitar parts and vocal harmonies" to relate specifically to the phrase "prototyped on 'I'm Not Okay (I Promise)'". If both these aspects weren't prototyped on "I'm Not Okay" and more characteristic of The Black Parade, then we should remove them.

contains a guitar solo featuring two guitar lines, separated by a harmonic third interval. The style of this guitar solo has been compared to the work of Queen, and Benson later explained how the Queen's influence, in particular guitar parts and vocal harmonies prototyped on "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)", paved the way for them on the band's subsequent album, The Black Parade (2006). —  Done: I've rearranged the sentence to talk about the harmonic third and the Queen influences separately; I do like this change since it puts that right next to the comparisons to Blink-182, and I definitely understand your point better once you've explain it like this. I've chosen not to elaborate on the Harmonic Third, though — that's the job of the crosslink.

I like your version, that was my hope with the suggestions!

Originally, a music video featuring a montage of a concert and pictures of the Way brothers as children was produced to accompany. → Originally, the release of "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" was accompanied by a music video featuring a montage of a concert and pictures of the Way brothers as children.

• put the name of the song at the beginning since it's the star of the article —  Done: Though I've used my own wording there, and am not the biggest fan of this change given that I think it breaks up the sentence's flow.

The above can be changed into: To promote the single, MCR released a music video featuring a montage of a concert and pictures of the Way brothers as children. In mid-2004, they produced a second music video for the single, filmed shortly after Bob Bryar joined the band as their drummer to replace Pelissier. Reason: emphasis on the single not the video, removed passive voice, removed the word "however" because the sentences are not in a juxtaposition (the second video is just an addition). —  Half done: It was the second music video which was recorded to promote the single; I've added that in for clarity. I genuinely could not find any information as to why the first video was produced, hence the intentional use of passive voice.

Compromised on excluding the song the promotional comments. Removed passive voice to simplify, since we know the video was produced by MCR and it's not necessary to use the passive voice. Removed the word "initial" since it's placement was redundant next to the word "originally". removed however is used to "introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously", and the second video doesn't contrast or contradict; it's just exists as a second video (it's seems to be deleted, so there's maybe some potential contrast with the band, I assume, unsatisfied with the first one and thinking they should, however, produce another one instead, but this "however" isn't explicitly stated in the first two sentences). Put "later" and the date together since they perform the same function.

This isn't a compromise, this is just adding unsourced information for the sake of bringing the sentence into active voice. There's no guarantee that the first video was produced by the band, especially since it's literally just a montage of concert clips which could have been created by anyone, even if it was ultimately released under the band's name. Is there a specific reason why you disagree with the use of passive voice here, even after I've explained my rationale for using it?

The video shows the group attempting to take revenge on their bullies, through a series of "antics, pranks and twists". The video culminates with the two groups preparing to fight, left as a cliffhanger ending. → The video shows the group attempting to take revenge on their bullies through a series of "antics, pranks and twists". The video ends with a cliffhanger, as the two groups are still preparing for a fight.

• Clarifying that "the group attempting" and "preparing to fight" are the same processes. I could be misunderstanding the situation. —  Not done: They are not the same processes, with both sentences having their respective sources (one refers to the video's concept as a whole, while the other refers to a specific scene at the end where the two parties directly confront each other). I've switched out "Through a series..." for "Featuring a series..." in order to avoid synthesis, however, and have removed the "attempting to" part for clarity.
  • The video shows the group taking revenge on their bullies through a series of "antics, pranks and twists". The confrontation culminates with the two groups preparing for war with the jocks, left as a cliffhanger ending. —  Not done: I feel that this is basically the same things that is currently written, except for the use of "preparing for war"; this reads to me as being more informal than "preparing to fight", and is more unclear to boot (especially considering that the band has a music video about actually going to war).
    • This one is more difficult to explain: changed the word video to revenge to clarify that the series of revenge pranks culminated with a fight. Clarified that they were just preparing for a fight (e.g. boxing, doing push-ups, etc), they actually almost exchanged blows, and then cliffhanger happened.
      • I've previously explained why I chose to use "featuring" instead of "through" to avoid synthesis. Why do you disagree with the use of the word "video", given that the Billboard article used to cite the video reads that the fight occurs "in the closing seconds", a direct reference to the video itself? I guess I just don't understand where your confusion is coming in with the way it's worded.

A pop-punk, emo, and emo pop song, "I'm Not Okay (I Promise) was conceived and recorded after the A&R man Craig Aaronson and the producer Howard Benson found a vocal line in a previously-recorded demo, and urged the group to build it into a complete song. → The song has been described pop-punk, emo, and emo pop. It was conceived and recorded after the A&R man Craig Aaronson and the producer Howard Benson found a vocal line in a previously-recorded demo, and urged the group to build it into a complete song.

• I'm still figuring out how subordinate clause works at the start of a sentence. My thought is: the subordinate clause should be directly connected with the main sentence. In this case the listed genres somehow affect the song (e.g., pop-punk, emo, and emo pop, genres that defined "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)"..; A pop-punk, emo, and emo pop song, "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" became the foundation for emo music..; etc). —  Done: I'm a bit confused at what you mean here, but I've rearranged the sentence to avoid this problem.

I think you should merge this two sentences at the start of the second paragraph since they both about the promotion. The track was released as the album's lead single on September 27, 2004, being serviced to US alternative radio stations. and Two accompanying music videos for "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" were produced. The second of the two, directed by Marc Webb, was inspired by Rushmore and is structured like a movie trailer starring the band members as nerds being bullied by jocks.

The third paragraph is about critical response, accolades, legacy. —  Not done: I based this on featured articles like Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Lips Are Movin, which contain information about the music video at the start of the third paragraph, separate from its release/promotion info.

• All links are archived. Y
• Checked sources with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Y

Looking at the cover art for this song, which depicts a person in a clown makeup (or just blood?). If this is makeup, do they wear it in the music video or any of the live shows. Might be an interesting leitmotif for the song (if true). I assume they also wore makeup at some shows where they didn't perform this song, so this is just a silly aside thought. — Knowing MCR, it's definitely supposed to represent blood; see the live-action recreation of the similarly-aestheticed cover for Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge on Life on the Murder Scene. However, they have not worn makeup resembling the cover art as far as I'm aware, nor have I found reliable sources (or sources at all, really) suggesting that they ever have.