# Talk:Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)

I read somewhere that the full title contained 19 Na's inside the brackets, not 15 as this article states?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitromaster (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 

Can you provide the source? Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kerrang today posted this: http://www.kerrang.com/blog/2010/10/my_chemical_romance_confirm_ne.html 
I do know there's other sources though which list the 19. Nitromaster (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The UK merch site also has 19 listed in it's track listing for the album:
http://store.ukundercurrent.com/store/products,my-chemical-romance-danger-days-the-true-lives-of-the-fabulous-killjoys_681.htm
Nitromaster (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
and rocksound magazine:
http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/new-my-chemical-romance-music-tonight
radio interview with gerard
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=2eLVsEO7rCk&feature=related
both state19 as well..i'd update it myself in the article...but i wouldn't know the best way to add it in...but also mention the standard long version being 15....Nitromaster (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL LOL LOL (LOL LOL LOL LOL.....)117.192.165.209 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110121170338/http://www.mychemicalromance.com/blog/jeff/na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-available-sale-tuesday-itunes-us to http://www.mychemicalromance.com/blog/jeff/na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-available-sale-tuesday-itunes-us
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101001101104/http://www.billboard.com:80/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-country-dance-club-play-1004117079.story to http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-country-dance-club-play-1004117079.story
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101007105927/http://www.billboard.com:80/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-dance-club-play-alternative-1004118866.story to http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-dance-club-play-alternative-1004118866.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na). 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/20100214150942/http://www.mtv.de/charts/germany to http://www.mtv.de/charts/germany
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The name on the GAN page alone caught my eye, and I don't know what that says other than that this song must be good, even though I've never listened to it. Anyway, here is my review, with suggestions I hope you can appreciate:


### 1a: prose
Very, very clean and professional all around, though I do have some minor quibbles:

Iero noted that "Na Na Na"... — Who's "Iero"? From the context, I presume this is talking about Frank Iero, but I'd clarify this as he has not been established before in the prose. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
All the names are mentioned in the lead, which I presume is good enough? Otherwise, I have no problem with adding it in for the sake of specificity.
Oh shoot. I even Ctrl+F'd and didn't even see that. That's my fault—disregard!
...with Dan Martin of NME praising how the single does not "fanny about in conceptual dreamscapes pretending to have cancer" and is instead "rooted in the here and now". — I'm sorry, this caught me off-guard. Those quotes seem extremely confusing for someone who has not listened to MCR at all. Is it about The Black Parade? Is it about their whole discography? Now, this isn't an obligatory change, but I feel like it should be explained better what Martin means about the single not "fannying about in conceptual dreamscapes pretending to have cancer" (which, if I may digress, is a seriously surreal sentence to read). Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know of that confusing bit, you are correct it specifically refers to The Black Parade (I would link "Cancer" (song) if I could, but that would be an EASTEREGG). I've re-worded the part a bit, hopefully it is a bit clearer now.
Seems fine enough to me now.
In a more critical review of the album, Jason Heller of The A.V. Club called the song "embarrassing" due to its "hammering, yammering idiocy". — No suggestion here, I just want to vicariously tell Jason to lighten up. Jeez. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Lol. You would not believe how hard it was to find a single overtly negative review of this song, in the interest of neutrality.
I can only imagine. It almost feels like critics like Jason only do it to be different.
According to Toro, the video was created after the intense response to "Art is the Weapon"... – What does "intense" mean? Is it good? Bad? Also, why is the reception of "Art is the Weapon" important? Is it stylistically similar? Totally different? This just feels kinda vague. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I've clarified it in the prose, hopefully it looks a bit better?
Seems fine enough to me.
That's about all I have to say. I honestly love how this is written–it's engaging all the way through while still being neutral and encyclopedic. Really great stuff. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 1b: formatting
Mostly well-formatted throughout the article. No excessive whitespace, photos are sized well, citations are placed in the correct positions, though I do have one nitpick. The paragraph in "Background and recording". I feel like readability would benefit if you split it some way, though maybe that's just me and liking consistent paragraph lengths. Overall, nothing wrong at all, but there is my one bone—a small bone, a stapes, if you will—to pick. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 2a: list of sources
There is a well-formatted list of references present at the bottom of the page. What an unnecessary separation in the GA criteria. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 2b: reliability and referencing
Most of all sources are reliable or situationally so (as per WP:A/S and other reliability boards), though I would appreciate a justification for inclusion for Louder Sound, Gigwise, and Music Feeds, none of which have been discussed for reliability. There are no unsourced statements throughout the article. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Louder Sound is essentially a combination of Classic Rock, Metal Hammer, and Prog — it is covered under the stipulation for Metal Hammer on A/S
Ooh, okay. Then that seems fine for GA.
Gigwise is just a source which seems reputable enough; not much discussion has taken regarding its use, but it does appear to have an editorial team, and it was nominated for Best Music Media Brand in 2013 per its Wikipedia page. It's also been used quite a bit on Wikipedia, including in FAs like "Diamonds" (song)
Also seems fine for GA, then.
Music Feeds is... definitely a lot weaker. I can't personally find their editorial team on their website site (assuming they have one), but it is used in several other GAs like The 1989 World Tour and Music of the Spheres World Tour. I may open up a discussion on A/S to check on this, but I can pretty easily remove the reference from this article if you think it'd be good?
Okay, I did some more digging and found something here in which the site was deemed unreliable as a whole. In light of this, I'll just play it safe and get rid of the source. Leafy46 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Good call.


### 2c: original research
Here is a spotcheck of sources that appear throughout the article to ensure that there exists text-source integrity. Numbers are as per diff 1294930429:

reference 1: , context is found within the Kerrang! article
reference 4: , context is found within the Rolling Stone article
reference 18: , context is found within source
reference 25: , context is found within source
reference 28: , context is found within source
reference 37: , context is found within source
reference 52: , context is found within source
reference 62: , context is found within source
reference 87: , context is found within source
reference 94: , context is found within source
I don't even have any quibbles. There was definitely paraphrasing at play, sometimes majorly, but there were no major leaps in logic. Integrity = Y from me. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 2d: plagiarism
Earwig says "violation unlikely", with the highest percentage 33.8%, most of whose "similarities" are proper nouns. Completely swell here. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 3a: main topics
I mean, I don't think there could possibly be anything not covered here about a song. Songs often have very little coverage. But, alas, after a(n admittedly cursory) Google search, I've found nothing major that warrants inclusion. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 3b: focus
Again, with my point above, I don't think it's even possible to stray from the topic. There's no obvious focus issues. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 4: neutrality
Neutral throughout. When there is color, it is with critical opinions. All good here. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 5: stability
I mean, come on, it's an obscure song article. No one's vandalizing it. Very stable. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 6a: illustration
With this length, there needn't be much illustration; the two images (one in the infobox and one of a performer in the music video) are fine for illustrating what needs to be illustrated. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### 6b: media relevance
All media is relevant to the article. The cover art is obvious, and the image of the performer illustrates an actor in the video. Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)


### Overall
I found... like... nothing wrong with this article. I'm putting this on hold because of my minor quibbles with the prose, but they're so minor I'm almost inclined to pass immediately. Either way, great job, and I look forward to your response(s). Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nub098765: Thanks for your quick review :) There are a few points above for you to peruse, but I've addressed everything that you left. Leafy46 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@Leafy46: Alright, then everything seems in order. Hope I'm not being too hasty with this, but I see nothing else wrong with this article and am inclined to  Pass it as the current juncture. A well-written, well-researched, and well-presented article I feel glad to have reviewed :) Nub098765 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you again for the review :) Do consider giving the song a listen, if you haven't already. Leafy46 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Will do :) Nub098765 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)