Talk:The Only Hope for Me Is You

I've found a listing for this song in Music Week for August 2011 — this proves that the song was released as a single then, given that Music Week is an "authoritative, music-oriented media outlet" per a discussion I started at WP:SINGLE?. However, I've struggled to prove the same for the October 2010 release. It hasn't been referred to as a single by any authoritative outlet or by the band, and Tom Bryant (Not the Life it Seems) explicitly calls "SING" this album's second single. It also wasn't released to radio in that time period, as far as I can tell. As such, I feel that that original release was as a promotional single, given that it seemed explicitly tied to Danger Days (didn't receive a music video or radio airplay) and was only released for digital download. It is true that the October release has unique artwork, but it seemed to me that this song fell under the umbrella of "A promotional single may not receive the same amount of attention from an artist as a regular single". As such, I've boldly decided to change this song from the album's 2nd to 5th single. Let me know if there is anything I've missed. Leafy46 (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Heads up, I'm almost certain that this is the least paid-attention-to article for an MCR song. You probably are not going to get anyone else's opinions or thoughts. Anyways, I personally agree with the date shift, but remember to change the single order on the main My Chemical Romance discography page. λ NegativeMP1 02:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, you never know who may stumble upon this in the future. Good call for the discography page, I've just made the edit :) Leafy46 (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, off topic, but I tried to tell you something through a dummy-edit-summary on your sandbox relating to your SING rewrite on this revision. Don't know if you saw it or not but I'm just making sure. λ NegativeMP1 02:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not see that, but thanks for letting me know about that! I didn't know that there was a page about that, given that I haven't worked on a song with much controversy before. Leafy46 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. _{User:RTSthestardust (Talk) (Edits)} 03:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

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:The Only Hope for Me Is You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gavetheman555 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my name is RTSthestardust, and I will review your nomination of "The Only Hope for Me Is You" for GA. - RTSthestardust (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Congrats @Gavetheman555, this is so far the best/most precise GA nomination I reviewed for you. There's less noticeable changes just to clean up the article's structure a bit. But overall, well done! - RTSthestardust (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note

• I made a few tiny fixes, including the sections. The composition section is good enough for it to be on its own.
• The citations look great, and appear to all be archived!

GA Criteria Table

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Well-done
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Genuinely well-done; all of them are archived
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No misses
	2c. it contains no original research.	Checked throughout.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 25.9%, which is overall good, and kinda funny considering that some of it are simply titled songs and whatever.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lead, background, production, composition, release, commercial performance, live performances, critical reception, personnel, and charts are evenly well-addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Consistent with no distracting issues spotted
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Your percentage takes up 87.5% of the whole authorship, which is impressive considering its an older song from MCU and could've accumulated edits over time; also very stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The single cover carries a proper source and rationale
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I recommend an alt text for the single artwork to help clarify that; otherwise, not necessary. Maybe add a picture of the band for illustration.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Close