Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 01:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 15:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full review shortly :) Medxvo (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for picking this up!! Locust member (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The single version of the song differs from the album version." - Do we know it differs in what exactly? Would "differs in production" be useful?
  • In all reviews of Census Designated that I found, barely mention the song anyway and the ones that do, do not note what is different. I believe "differs in production" would be good, so  Done
• "mastering for the single" - "the mastering for the single"?
  •  Done
• "Vega handled the mastering for the album version" - "Vega mastered the album version" to avoid repetition
  •  Done
• I suggest changing the ballad wikilink to sentimental ballad because it is usually used for song articles
  •  Done, thanks for pointing this out!
• "Contingency Song" was positively received by music publications upon its release." - I usually like to say what critics actually liked about the song because "positively received" would be too vague for the lead, so perhaps, "Music critics generally praised "Contingency Song" for its atmospheric shoegaze production"?
  •  Done
• "changed their[a] stage name" - "announced their[a] new stage name"
  •  Done
• "This was followed by the album's final single, "Census Designated", on September 20" - Is this bit necessary?
  •  Removed
• "Census Designated was released by DeadAir Records on October 20" - "DeadAir Records released Census Designated on October 20" to avoid passive voice
  •  Done
• "... is based around themes of the apocalypse and the collapse of a relationship" - I think what the critic wanted to say was that, "... uses apocalyptic imagery to describe a failing relationship". What do you think?
  • I'm not too sure - he states "the song is about the apocalypse (sort of). Jane repeats [lyrics], dreading the world-eating collapse of a relationship". They are two separate sentences and I'm not sure if it's clear enough that he's saying the apocalyptic imagery relates to the line about the collapse of a relationship.
    • That makes sense. He wasn't really specific about the apocalypse part so I guess that's fine. Medxvo (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Pitchfork's Allison Harris compared the latter line to the song "Ditch a Body in the Laundry" (2016) by Laura Les.[11] Harris further wrote that the song "has the liminal atmosphere of an airport terminal" and said the track has a "gloomy climate".[11]" - "Pitchfork's Allison Harris compared the latter line to similar lyrics from the song "Ditch a Body in the Laundry" (2016) by Laura Les and wrote that "Contingency Song" has "the liminal atmosphere of an airport terminal" and a "gloomy climate".[11]
  •  Done
• I think "contains "dissonant drones" can be removed since the song's genre is already drone?
  •  Done
• I think a "personnel" section can be added, even if there are only three names to add lol
  • haha,  Done

Some critical reception suggestions

• "Chris DeVille of Stereogum wrote that it "builds in beauty and intensity throughout most of its six and a half minutes" and called it a "phenomenal shoegaze ballad of sorts"." - "Chris DeVille of Stereogum dubbed it a "phenomenal shoegaze ballad of sorts" and praised how the track "builds in beauty and intensity [...] without ever dropping a beat, then bottoms out into gorgeous near-silence again."
  •  Done
• "In a review of the song for Pitchfork, Harris said Remover "spirals" on the song and wrote that it is "overpowered by whirrs and droning noises"." - "Harris similarly lauded the atmospheric production and the way "its gloomy climate grows in harshness". - since subheadlines are not RS
  •  Done, forgot about this rule
• "Raphael Helfand from The Fader selected it as a "Song You Need"; he said "Jane's singular vision obliterates any premature allegations of pastiche" and called the song "its own animal"." - "Raphael Helfand from The Fader selected "Contingency Song" as a "Song You Need"; he thought that it departed from the traditional rock and roll structure with its drum-less production, which "obliterates any premature allegations of pastiche".
  •  Done
• "Brady Brickner-Wood of the same magazine felt the song "prove[d] that [Remover is] not done upending expectations"." - "Brady Brickner-Wood of the same magazine considered it one of the tracks that highlighted Remover's artistic reinvention and sound evolution".
  •  Done
• I also suggest reading WP:RECEPTION if you haven't, it is a very helpful essay.
  • I have, but unfortunately I have really only done that style well when there's a lot to work with. Still gotta work on reception sections with limited sources.
    • I understand... It can be a major pain sometimes. I hope my above suggestions were helpful and feel free to make any necessary changes. Writing reception sections gets a lot easier with time and practice, so keep up the great work! Medxvo (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks (for all sources/all uses)

• 1 - OK
• 2 and 3 - You can replace ref 3 with this source, which explicitly states that they came out as a trans woman in June
  •  Added thanks!
• 4 - (a) doesn't confirm that it was released by DeadAir Records
  • Added Apple Music source at the end; left in Stereogum to confirm it's a single
• 5 - (a) doesn't confirm the "lyric video" part; although it is indeed a lyric video, the video is titled "official audio". I don't think this bit is necessary anyways so perhaps it can just be removed
  • I see; their hub on The Fader confirms it's a lyric video, but I'm not sure this would pass as a high quality source so I'll just remove it for now and see what you think about adding this in.
    • I think it would be considered as a subheadline and therefore not really suggested.... It's not really necessary info in my opinion and the article seems fine without it. Medxvo (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 6 - OK
• 7 - OK
• 8 - OK
• 9 - (b) doesn't confirm that it was mastered by Zeroh, perhaps you can use this source (I think Bandcamp should be fine per WP:PERSONNEL)
  •  Done
• 10 - OK
• 11 - OK
• 12 - OK
• 13 - OK
• 14 - OK

I think that's all, I'll also take another look once these are done. I also suggest that you take the article to WP:PR once the GAN is done so more editors can provide input, and perhaps to WP:GOCE as well for further prose polishing. I think you've added all available high-quality reliable sources, and the article seems comprehensive enough. Thanks for inviting me to review the GAN! Medxvo (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for giving an in depth review!! Locust member (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Locust member, I really enjoyed reading/reviewing the article. I've left some replies above and made some minor copyedits here, including using WP:TITLECASE for some refs for formatting consistency, which is recommended. I think the article seems ready and I have no further comments. Congratulations and best of luck with the article! Medxvo (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]