• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the song, establishes the song's necessary context, and explains why the song is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the song is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• All images included in this article include alt captions per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and standard captions.
• The image of Christian Bale is PD, the first two images of Mae Shi are CC BY-SA 3.0, and the third image of Mae Shi is PD; all are acceptable for use here.
• I took the liberty of reordering inline citations in numerical order throughout the prose.
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background

• In the third paragraph, I suggest using one inline citation at the end of the paragraph since all the content is sourced from Citation #7.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Inspiration and composition

• I de-linked sampling, as it was wiki-linked above.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Release and reception

• I de-linked new wave music and The Arizona Daily Star as they were both linked above in the prose.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

• In §Background, TMZ is the name of the website at TMZ.com; there's no need to refer to it by URL. Similarly, later on, I don't think MTV.com is the correct styling. You should be good with just MTV. In general, very few websites are actually named their URL (Phys.org is a counterexample off the top of my head). To some extent, that applies in the references also.
• There are some inconsistencies in the spacing of line breaks in your quoted lyrics in §Inspiration and composition. Sometimes you line break with a slash, other times with a slash and a trailing space. MOS:SLASH indicates these should be spaced on both sides.
• §Release and reception does not read to me as compelling prose. Mostly, the problem here is that it is just a series of statements of the form "Media outlet said observation." Now, obviously, there aren't scholarly retrospectives to cite for general statements, so to some extent that's unavoidable. But it might be preferable to make certain that the observations are arranged into logical groups, and provide some sort of introductory statement letting the reader know what to expect from that group of observations. For example, something about how several media outlets attempted to categorize the song by genre, followed by the various cited sources which did so. Likewise, comments about its rapid production. And so on.

• My singling out of genre is especially on-point, because the infobox calls this piece "experimental rock"; you've got a number of media outlets making pronouncements about genre, but none of them call it that.

References:

• I believe that "Christian Bale's Verbal Attack Draws Today's Attention" was bylined by Adam Bryant. This was also probably distributed via one of the wire services, although I can't confirm that. I say so only because TV Guide appears to have an identical article here. You don't ever attribute material from this article to the newspaper directly, though, so there's no problem with citing it where you found it.
• If a source doesn't have a listed author, there's no need to cite it to "Source staff".
• There's sort of an art to when you need to include publishers for web sources, and the MOS doesn't provide any hard rules to go by. In general, that's necessary only when the publisher is both relevant and not obvious from the website name. So, for example, MSNBC and BBC News don't need a cited publisher because they are obvious from the website; CNN doesn't need a publisher because it's not generally relevant that CNN is owned by Time Warner. On the other hand, noting that Pop Candy is a publication of USA Today is probably correct.

• The various cases where a URL has been used as a publisher are definitely wrong.

I'm neutral on promotion at this time. I don't think there's anything here that's fatal to promotion, but I'd prefer to see some reworking of §Release and reception and reference format tidying before I'm comfortable dropping my name in the support bin. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries, I'm going to try my best to be responsive to above helpful comments. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Thanks very much to Squeamish Ossifrage for these helpful comments, I've made some responsive changes to the page and I think thanks to you the article is much better for them.

1. Done. I've gone ahead and removed that cite, as suggested.
2. Done. Changed TMZ.com to just TMZ.
3. Done. Likewise with MTV.com, to just MTV.
4. Done. Fixed issues with spacing before and after the slashes, per recommendations, above.
5. Done. Removed "Staff" from cites, as suggested.
6. Done. Fixed or removed "publisher" fields, kept a couple only in specific cases as recommended.
7. Done. Fixed infobox field to reflect cited sources in article body text.
8. Done. Rearranged section as suggested, to group sources together by Genre and Production speed.

Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things looks much better. A couple follow-up notes:

• §Release and reception is much better than before! I might reword the introductory sentence to the last paragraph though; not all the sources seems to say that it was an "odd" tribute, so that adjective has something of novel synthesis about it.
• "Outburst reveals Christian Bale’s ‘Dark’ side" appears to be a doubly-dead link. The archive has been suppressed via robots.txt, and the original isn't resolving. Probably need to check them all, since archive dates are back in 2009 here (and I lazied out and didn't do it).
• You have a few cases where you're not consistent about whether you're using ((cite news)) or ((cite web)) for web-news references. Normally, that's irrelevant, but when combined with

• Sentences after fourth line of second para are quite repetitive – xxx described it as, xxx praised its...
• Suggestion for image caption of Christian Bale: Christian Bale in July 2008.
• "but rather an homage to Bale" – why is it an homage?
• TV Guide can be linked in ref 1.
• I don't see why you should italicize publishers like MSNBC and CNN as they are television networks.
• Ref 14 – Digital Spy does not need italics and can be wiki-linked.
• Ref 16 and 17 – ditto (no italics).
• London is a well-known geographic location. I don't think it should be linked, per WP:OVERLINKING. -- Frankie _talk 13:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Done. Changed from piece to song.
2. Done. Copy edited these a bit to increase variation, I'm also quite thankful for the two (2) copy editing passes performed by John.
3. Done. Changed image caption, as suggested.
4. Done. Fixed this, as suggested.
5. Done. Linked TV Guide here.
6. Done. Removed italics for these, as suggested.
7. Done. Removed italics. Added wiki-link.
8. Done. Removed italics.
9. Done. Removed link to London.

Thank you for these helpful suggestions, FrB.TG, the article looks much better for them! — Cirt (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]