Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Contingency Song/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 June 2025 [1].

Contingency Song

[edit]
Nominator(s): Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Contingency Song" is a single from Jane Remover's second studio album, Census Designated. Released alongside a reissue of their debut studio album, Frailty (2021), and an announcement of their first merchandise capsule, the song's single version differs in production than its album version. In March, I created the article and upgraded it to GA. I later put it up for peer review with limited, yet substantial participation. I believe that, although the article is short, it covers its bases from all available information on the Internet, and has no information left behind. Thank you!

I would also love to give a big thank you to Medxvo for reviewing the article for GA and helping me out with copy editing. Locust member (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Averageuntitleduser

[edit]

Signing on. Should be done today or tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The two versions of the song differ in length and in the way in which they were produced." — perhaps just: "in length and production."
  • In the lead and body, "relationship" could be specified (e.g. romantic relationship, intimate relationship).
    • The Fader states Jane repeats, dreading the world-eating collapse of a relationship before the track descends into pure staticky chaos. Pitchfork states As its gloomy climate grows in harshness, Jane shuts down over a destructive relationship. Both don't specify what type of relationship, so claiming that Remover is singing about a romantic/intimate on in the wiki article would be OR, right? Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the mastering for the single and album version were handled by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively." — I think a rewrite without "handled" is more direct, e.g. "while the single and album version were mastered by Zeroh and Hector Vega, respectively". Change similarly in the body.
  • "A drum-less track" — suggest removing from the lead as too detailed.
  • "Over the course of the song, the instrumental grows in intensity until it conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence." — replace
    • I'm going to need a little bit more guidance here; replace what exactly? Is the whole sentence poorly written? The sources that I am using for this claim (and the claim in the body) read: The pulverizing noise soon eclipses them, squealing and churning until a sense of resignation begins to close in. (Pitchfork) and Contingency Song” builds in beauty and intensity throughout most of its six and a half minutes without ever dropping a beat, then bottoms out into gorgeous near-silence again. (Stereogum). do you have a recommendation for what exactly could be changed with the sentence? not disagreeing but this is just the best I can currently come up with based on the sources. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alongside the release of" — I think this is used to avoid the semantics over whether Remover or the label released the songs, which secondary sources presumably don't always specify. But it felt a bit clunky both times:
    • The first sentence could be rewritten as a list and Helfand's article could be sourced to add that the songs were released by DeadAir: "In June 2022, Jane Remover came out as a trans woman, announced their new stage name, and released the songs 'Royal Blue Walls' and 'Cage Girl' via DeadAir Records."
    • At that point, I don't think active voice would be too confusing in the other sentence ("and released the single 'Lips'"). Passive voice could work too ("and the single 'Lips' was released").
  • "merchandise capsule" — I hadn't heard this phrase before, and when Googling it within quotes, a tweet by DeadAir is one of the top results. Would "merchandise line" work?
  • Office Magazine has the good detail that Remover placed the song last to represent dawn.
  • "until its noise conceals Remover's vocals and ends in near-silence" — "until its noise... ends in near-silence" is a bit confusing.
  • BrooklynVegan listed the song as among their favourites of the week. Not much, but I think it could be added.
  • "artistic reinvention and sound evolution" — naturally, what was the artistic reinvention? Could you elaborate in the article?

A few more comments about "Composition" and "Critical reception" are on the way. In the meantime, don't mind my pickiness. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the pickiness! I got most done, but need some clarification on a few. Locust member (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a drum-less track" — I would say "It contains no drums". Also, it would be worth introducing/repeating here that this is in contrast to traditional rock and roll structures.
  • Sometimes in the "Critical reception" section, the article could integrate the quotes to better explain what the reviewers mean. This would also help remove some repetition with the "Composition" section.
    • DeVille seems to think that the song builds up smoothly and without losing momentum. Something like that could replace his second quote.
    • Harris's article isn't very opinionated, so I would weaken "lauded" to "complemented" or "enjoyed". In place of the quote, we could just say that he liked the song's progression.

Ok. I think that's all. Also, I recommend removing the graphics templates from this review page. That instruction is in the blurb at the top of WP:FAC, which is admittedly not the shortest. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Thank you for the review!! Locust member (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice changes. I did some crazy Google searching and looked in other databases but didn't find any more sources, so the article seems comprehensive. Support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wee image review - Pass

[edit]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • The lead says that Remover mixed both versions, but I think the mixing for the single version isn't confirmed according to the prose
    • Done
  • "was remastered for their second studio album" - "... for Remover's second studio album", as the preceding sentence doesn't mention the singer
    • Done
  • "the single and album version" - "the single and album versions"? (in lead and prose)
    • In the peer review, an editor said that "single version" is not correct; you can read that here. Would like to know your opinion on it though.
      • I personally think that "single version" is okay (see this review for example).
  • "they felt it was able to represent dawn" - I think it would be great if this could be expanded more based on Remover's comments in the source
    • Done, I think
  • I suggest archiving refs 3, 7, 8, and 15
    • Done

I think that's all :) My other comments were previously addressed during the GAN review. Medxvo (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the look!! Locust member (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to one point above, but I'm happy to support. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you and have changed it to what it was originally. Thank you!! Locust member (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Seems like reliability, source formatting and some light spotchecks check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

Apologies in advance as I will be unable to do a full prose review for this article, but I still wanted to help with this FAC. My comments are below:

  • The infobox is a bit confusing. The lead makes it seem like this song was first released as a standalone single and later remastered for an album. However, the infobox combines this information together, so it makes this distinction unclear. I could see a reader looking at the infobox and thinking that the song was a single from the album. This is made more confusing as the single cover from the standalone release is used while the prose in the infobox says it is a single from Census Designated. I think that removing the album name from the infobox would help with this.
    • The song was released as a single and then later was put on an album with differing production and a different master. So in a sense this is a single from the album but the single version differs from the album version. Single covers are still used when a song is taken from an album, but this case is confusing because, the song itself is from the album, but the standalone single is not. Do you still think "from the album Census Designated" should be removed? The song is still on the album.
      • I still think that it should be removed. It is not unusual for a standalone single to be later released on an album or even for it to be remastered or changed for a later album release. I am aware that single covers are used for singles from albums. There is not indication in the article that this song (either the original or the remastered version) was released as a single to promote this particular album. That would need to be clearly supported.
      • I do not think the case itself is confusing. A singer releases a song as a standalone single and then later includes a different form of it as an album track. Again, that happens. That does not automatically make it a single from the album. I think that the way that it is presented in the article is confusing. It is confusing when the infobox says that it is a single from Census Designated when there is nothing to support that in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include a note on Remover's pronoun usage as it would be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with this article.
    • Done.
  • Is there any further information on the song's personnel, like who mixed the single version? I am aware that this information is not always made available. I just wanted to ask to clarify this with you.
    • There is not, what is included is all we know.
  • I think that the way in which the genres are discussed in the lead and the article, (is a ballad in the shoegaze and drone genres), is awkwardly constructed. I would look at song FAs to see how they bring up a song's genre.
    • The reason it is like that is to not lose any wikilinks. If we say " 'Contingency Song' is a shoegaze and drone ballad", we have to drop the link for "ballad" so sea of blue issues do not occur.
  • The first paragraph of the "Background and release" section repeats "released" for several sentences in a row. It is best to avoid this kind of repetition whenever possible as it makes the prose less engaging.
    • Done.
  • The first sentence in the "Background and release" section seems rather random and disconnected from this song. Maybe revising it to say: (In 2022, Jane Remover came out as a trans woman, announced their new stage name, and released the songs "Royal Blue Walls", "Cage Girl", and "Contingency Song" through DeadAir Records. "Contingency Song" was made available on November 16, 2022, alongside the reissue of Remover's debut studio album, Frailty (2021) and an announcement of their first merchandise line.)
    • I like that, done.
  • The lead says that the song was remastered for the album, but this is not explicitly said anywhere in the actual article.
    • It does, but indirectly; I get your point. How do you recommend I change the lead?
      • I was more so recommending that you should explicitly say in the article itself that this song was remastered for the album. If there is not a clear source to support this, then it should be removed from the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the part about "Lips" single release as it does not seem relevant. Keep the focus on "Contingency Song".
    • Done.
  • Is there any information on how production for the single and album versions differ?
    • There is not, or else it would have already been included. The most we have from the sources is that it includes a "different version" or an "album version" of the single. I changed it from "differs in production" to just "is a different version" since that is just what the sources state.
  • I am confused by this part, (It departs from a traditional rock and roll song structure as it contains no drums). Why is rock and roll being brought up? Would listeners expect this song to have that kind of structure? Would people think that Remover would release a rock and roll song? It seems really random and abrupt. It is also repetitive, as this is repeated in the "Critical reception" section. I am also a bit confused by the mention in that section. Maybe it is because I have never heard of Remover before, but I feel like this quote, ("obliterates any premature allegations of pastiche" ), is missing context.
    • The source states this: Of course, Jane’s singular vision obliterates any premature allegations of pastiche, breaking new ground on a path A.R. Kane and My Bloody Valentine began carving almost four decades ago. Those groups — and the vast majority of those that came after — still adhered at least loosely to the structures and strictures of rock ’n’ roll. But “Contingency Song” is its own animal: a drumless and at times demented dirge the reaches the end of any previously plotted map and nose dives into the great nothing.

I think they are saying that the song draws comparisons to A.R. Kane and MBV, but they still sounded like rock n roll artists. I just included this in the Critical reception section. Another editor suggested I included the "departs from the traditional rock and roll song structure" in both parts, but I removed it in Composition.

Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but I still hope that these comments are helpful. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locust member are you working on the above? With the limited support this nomination has gotten it's liable to be archived presently unless significant progress towards a consensus emerges. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I'm sorry, I've had very very limited time to be on Wikipedia in the past ~3 weeks but yes I am working on these. Locust member (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, and I have answered some critiques and commented on others. Locust member (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I have left my replies above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote building. Just the single general support and the latest reviewer - who has stated that they will not be able to carry out a full review - waited five days for their first tranche of comments to be addressed and it has been a further five days with their second tranche still unaddressed. Given the above I shall archive this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Contingency_Song/archive1&oldid=1296742987"