Mama (My Chemical Romance song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 8, 2007 Articles for deletion Deleted June 24, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily deleted September 1, 2024 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that mamas sang on "Mama"? Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Post-hardcore: My Chemical Romance Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the My Chemical Romance task force. Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There was a sentence that referenced billboard as saying that it may come out December 12. Nowhere on that site does it say that. I removed it. Andrew V. 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People need to stop saying that it will be released on a certain date if they have no proof. I doubt 'December 23, 2012' is right. Partial Protection, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.144.141 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now confirmed that the whole single thing was in fact a rumor, now let's delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.189.17 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Zazaban (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.189.17 (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the date is a rumor, not the single. Zazaban (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What article is being referred to here????? WHY ISN'T THIS PAGE DELETED! in all seriousness, there is NO evidence that shows this is a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.152.203 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page, Frank admits they haven't made a video for it yet, and don't know if they ever will, therefore, the single is still only a rumor, please delete this page for now until it is confirmed as a single, and you guys are right, there is no evidence to support any sign of Mama turning into a single. Blkeddie! (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary the page has been formated in to that of a standard song, not a single, and as it has received notable airplay as of November 2007 in the United Kingdom and has been so widely speculated (even by the BBC, Absolute Punk, NME) and there has been mention of the bands desire to release a further single and a video for the song, the article does meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), so unless it is merged with The Black Parade which does not seem necessary, the article can be left. (86.154.242.202 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This date needs a valid source pronto. There are plenty of warnings about putting false/rumoured dates in this article, so just don't do it. Deleting this until evidence of its validity arises. Softwing (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clearly no one reads discussion pages anymore, as it has happened again. Give a source or don't edit the page. Seems pretty clear to me. If you give a date with no citation, it isn't going to be sticking around. Softwing (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mama (My Chemical Romance song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928062743/http://www.therecordshack.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=1490 to http://www.therecordshack.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=1490

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mama (My Chemical Romance song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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

• "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

• 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:...

• "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")

• 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.

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

• 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

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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:
· · ·