Talk:Vampire Money

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:Vampire Money/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 21:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria - my aim is to make the article as good as possible - but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Review is complete. Prose mostly just needs copyedits; the sources need some cleanup. Placing on hold. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks for reviewing this article! I've fixed the issues noted below (with extra notes if needed) and filled out the references where needed. λ NegativeMP1 01:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Great work, passing now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• all members --> all four members
  • Done.
• experiences on getting --> experiences of being
  • Done.

Background and production

• Are any further details available about the band being asked to be on the Twilight soundtrack (in particular, by who)? Statements like other people the band knew are awkwardly vague.
  • I agree, but it's also not known who was requesting the band to make a song for Twilight. It's been implied to be the filmmakers themselves beyond the label/distributors, but I didn't really find a reference that specifically backs that up without some sort of speculation.
    • Misinterpreted this a bit and also worded it poorly. I've went ahead and just cut the vagueness part and added an extra reference backing up that they "received offers" to write a song for the score.
• the band wrote / in reference to his belief - the pronouns don't match
  • Fixed.
• as produced --> was produced
  • Fixed.

Composition and lyrics

• namely Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis: use "and" instead of a comma if there's only two listed
  • Done.
• The citations for Among these references... and the next sentence seem to be reversed.
  • Fixed.
• The Alt Press source is somewhat speculative about the Misfits reference ("Too close for coincidence, right?"). I would recommend removing that sentence unless a more clear citation can be found.
  • Fair enough. Cut.

Critical reception

• they further described Does Spinks use they/them pronouns? Other articles using this citation use she/her.
  • Fixed.
• In more critical review of Danger Days... Incomplete sentence.
  • Fixed.
• bands seventh - missing apostrophe
  • Fixed.
• seventh best out of fifteen - this is somewhat misleading, as it was listing the 15 best songs, rather than 15 being the entire discography. Also needs a hyphen after seventh.
  • Removed the "best out of fifteen" bit.

References

All reference numbers are from this version.

• I would move the Bryant source inline with the others, rather than using Harvard-style for a single source that's only cited twice. {{rp}} can be used for the page numbers. The Bryant source also doesn't need via Google Play, since the version on that site is not being linked to.
  • I went ahead and just got rid of the source entirely actually. For this specific page it actually doesn't help out that much. Although I will clarify that the "via Google Play" part was there because that was the version of the book I have access to. And page numbers typically vary with eBook editions.
• A number of sources have missing/incorect parameters; please double-check all sources.
  • Sources 9, 12, and 15 are missing authors
  • Sources 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 15 are missing dates
  • Source 3 appears to be missing details as well; it's not even clear what form of media it is.
    • Removed this one entirely because everything in this part of the article is backed up by Stuff and the NME TV one is unnecessary.
  • Source 11 has incorrect author parameter
  • Source 6 is missing publisher
  • For sources 2, 9, 12, and 14, write out the website name rather than www.stuff.co.nz and similar
• All online sources were spot-checked. Aside from issues noted above, two didn't verify:
  • Source 2 doesn't contain the "chasing that fucking money" quote. (A similar quote appears in source 7).
    • "That's why the song Vampire Money is on there, because there's a lot of people chasing that f**king money."?
  • Source 9 only indicates the listener is intended to be on the joke (in general), not specifically the anti-Twilight joke.
    • Adjusted, although I think the wording with this bit is a bit awkward without that clarification.

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.