Talk:Tangled Up (Girls Aloud album)

Tangled Up (Girls Aloud album) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 27, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tangled Up (Girls Aloud album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fake tracklists

Can something be done about everyone posting fake tracklists? I've left a message telling them not to post until the real tracklist is confirmed. Steveweiser 11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can the listed tracklisting from CD Wow, etc. be accurate if it does not include the confirmed tracks from either GA's or Fascination official site?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.75.27 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request for semi protection, but it has been declined because registered users are adding fake track listings too. We need to try and get a discussion going about the inclusion/removal of links before any further protection will be issued. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the CD-WOW track listing, confirmed tracks from Fascination and elsewhere might be 'bonus' tracks for the UK edition only or tracks that have since been dropped. Also songs can have their titles changed![82.23.82.225 on 20/10/2007 19:30]

I'd rather keep the "retail" listing off until a few more suppliers have confirmed the track listing, or atleast until an official source has quoted the entire track list. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Up

Sinse Mixed Up is an album on its own, should it be on its own seperate page? Charmer 07:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can tell at present, it is only available in Woolworths, and only when you pre-order Tangled Up. If it transpires that it is available elsewhere (I normally take this as meaning it is available on a few online stores) then I think it will be eligible for its own page. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can order tangled up from the Wooly's site on its own for 4.97 pounds...it's listed as "Mixed-Up" though. Doesn't this count? http://www.woolworths.co.uk/web/jsp/product/index.jsp?pid=50960825 68.7.204.156 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend creating a Mixed Up page for itself, under the compilations category. It is not physically packaged with Tangled Up and can be purchased separately, regardless of its Woolworths exclusivity. The fact that it has an entirely separate tracklist entitles it to its own page, plus the TU page is getting very crowded.68.7.204.156 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination

This article was nominated in November by PopLizard86427, who had made only one edit to the article. Given that the first step of a good article nomination instructs that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination", I wanted to check in with those who watch this page and/or have contributed to the article, to make sure that the nomination is appropriate. Normally I would just revert the nomination, but given that it's been sitting for two months, thought I would ask here first.--Usernameunique (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tangled Up (Girls Aloud album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Considering this nomination has waited for a review since November, I will review it for you. Lazman321 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

...and distributed in two physical formats and available for digital consumption. to ...and was distributed in two physical formats and made available for digital consumption.
...with the band members earned songwriting credits for two tracks off the album. to ...with the band members earned songwriting credits for two tracks off the album.
Majority of the album consists of synthesizers, to A majority of the album consists of synthesizers,
...whilst it was the group's first experimentation with tools such as autotune and vocoder. to ...and it was the group's first experimentation with tools such as autotune and vocoder.
However, minor criticism was aimed towards certain inclusions on the record. Please clarify what inclusions were being criticized.
...after the release of Girls Aloud's third studio album Chemistry (2005); to his advantage, he decided to take inspiration... to ...after the release of Girls Aloud's third studio album Chemistry (2005). To his advantage, he decided to take inspiration...
...critics could expect from the album, Group member Cheryl said... to ...critics could expect from the album, group member Cheryl said...
However, Higgins provided the demos for member Nadine Coyle to solely record as she had moved to Los Angeles, California that year; the motive was to allow Coyle to choose what sounds and sections from each song worked for her. to However, Higgins only provided the demo to member Nadine Coyle to sing to choose which sections of the song will work.
...experiment more with the production; moreover, recording had to be halted... to experiment more with the production. Moreover, recording had to be halted
The album was finished in October 2007, and was mastered by Higgins himself, to The album was finished in October 2007 and was mastered by Higgins himself,
...Alexis Petridis of The Guardian noted that the material was "witty, diverse" and "experimental", to ...Alexis Petridis of the Guardian found the material to be "witty, diverse and experimental",
...which pokes fun at indie bands". to ...which pokes fun at indie bands.
Furthermore, Cheryl highlighted it as her favourite track from the album and believed it gives her "goosebumps". to Furthermore, Cheryl highlighted it as her favourite track from the album and said it gave her goosebumps.
...and available for digital consumption through Polydor. to ...and was made available for digital consumption through Polydor.
...in front of a purple background; the lyrics for each song were not featured... to ...in front of a purple background. The lyrics for each song were not featured...
...from British retail stores Woolworths, and was available at a discounted price to ...from British retail store Woolworths and was available at a discounted price
...directed by Trudy Bellinger, and features the group sporting futuristic-looking skintight PVC catsuits... to ...directed by Trudy Bellinger and features the group sporting futuristic-looking skintight PVC catsuits...
It achieved critical acclaim from critics, and was awarded the... to It achieved critical acclaim from critics and was awarded the...
...number three in the UK, and number nine in Ireland. to ...number three in the UK and number nine in Ireland.
...directed by Sean de Sparengo, and features the members in purple dresses to ...directed by Sean de Sparengo, and features the members in purple dresses...
...which was released 17 March 2008; this was during the same time... to ...which was released 17 March 2008. This was during the same time...
...results in hair-curlingly exciting music", and enjoyed the group's ability to grow creatively. to ...results in hair-curlingly exciting music" and enjoyed the group's ability to grow creatively.
Nick Levine from Digital Spy found the songs "fun, frivolous, catchy, sexy and innovative"... to Nick Levine from Digital Spy found the songs to be "fun, frivolous, catchy, sexy and innovative"...
...move on creatively since their time on reality TV, and commended the album's pop and electronic aspects. to ...move on creatively since their time on reality TV and commended the album's pop and electronic aspects.
Although he called it "original, inventive and sometimes exhilarating", the only aspect of criticism was aimed towards the album cover. to He called the album "original, inventive and sometimes exhilarating", and the only aspect of criticism in his review was aimed towards the album cover.
He also criticized the "boring" vocal performances, but only recommended "Black Jacks" for its "acceptable" quality. to He also criticized the "boring" vocal performances and only recommended "Black Jacks" for its "acceptable" quality.
...Tangled Up re-entered the top 100 chart at number 79, and spent eight weeks outside the top 70. to ...Tangled Up re-entered the top 100 chart at number 79 and spent eight weeks outside the top 70..
...Out of Control was still inside the top 100, and charted for a total of three weeks. to ...Out of Control was still inside the top 100 and charted for a total of three weeks.
...doing activities in different countries; Coyle, who was scheduled to take part... to ...doing activities in different countries. Coyle, who was scheduled to take part...
...between May to mid-August 2008, and was recorded on 17 May 2008... to {{xt|...between May to mid-August 2008 and was recorded on 17 May 2008
...claimed by publications such as AllMusic, Popjustice, amongst others; furthermore, the single won the Popjustice £20 Music Prize, to ...claimed by publications such as AllMusic, Popjustice, amongst others. Furthermore, the single won the Popjustice £20 Music Prize,

This is all the prose problems I have found. There may be more I have missed, but despite the number of problems found, it should be easy to fix them. Lazman321 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. if I should fail this criterion, as had the article not had sourcing issues, this criterion would've been easy to deal with. Lazman321 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

I will be evaluating its adherence based on what the good article criteria requires: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section has four paragraphs in it. As a general rule of thumb via MOS:LEAD, it is a good idea for an article with 15,000 to 30,000 characters to have two to three paragraphs. Considering that this article only has 23,000 characters, the lead section could be condensed to three paragraphs instead of four. The layout is fine, though some of the quotes in the composition section should probably be moved to the reception section. There do seem to exist some weasel words in the composition and singles section that are largely unsubstantiated that I'd recommend being addressed. The guidelines for fiction and list incorporation do not apply. Lazman321 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel words issue was more problematic than I though. This article does ✗ Fail this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The easiest criterion to meet. There is indeed an easily identifiable list of sources with inline citations linking to the list. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

The Daily Star and Metro are not reliable sources. Please replace them with better sources or otherwise, remove the claims they support. As for Sputnikmusic, the source is fine to use if the review was done by staff. However, I cannot verify that it was done by a staff member because the page was blanked. I would recommend replacing the source also. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other unreliable sources use like IMDB in this article, which I didn't notice until the source check. This article does ✗ Fail this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

I did a source check and have concluded that the changes needed for the article to pass a good article review are too extensive for a nomination to pass. This article does ✗ Fail this criterion. See the verdict section for more information. Lazman321 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

With a copyvio score of 18%, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Broad in its coverage

5 - Stable

The article has not been edited at all since March 5, 2022. The last posting on the talk page is from January 2022 and it really wasn't a content dispute; it was more of a nomination dispute. The only other postings were in 2007. This means there are no ongoing content disputes or edit wars. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

Every file, including the samples and excluding the public domain image, has a valid fair use rationale. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

Two of the files are cover arts. Two of the files are samples of the songs from the album. One of the files is an image of Girls Aloud performing in the Tangled Up performance, which is in mentioned in prose. All files are relevant to the topic at hand. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Verdict

I have reviewed the well-written criterion for the nomination and to be honest, it was a bit exhausting. I have to do the source check next as part of the verifiability criterion. For now, I will be taking a break. You can do my suggestions in the meantime. Lazman321 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed the criterions for which a source check is not required. Now, in order to finish this review, a source check is most certainly required. However, I am about to go on a field trip, so don't be surprised if I don't finish today or respond to inquiries fast enough. In the meantime, feel free to do my suggestions. Lazman321 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source review I have done on the article has made it entirely clear that this article is not ready for a nomination. The source integrity is inadequate, especially in the composition section and the commercial and televised appearances sub-section. There's even a citation needed template in the singles section. There are also unreliable sources used throughout the article, some of which I didn't mention above. Not to mention, weasel words, which are disallowed by the good article criteria, are present. In order for this nomination to be passed, an overhaul of the article to account for source integrity is needed. I am sorry, but I cannot pass the review or place it on hold. I recognize that this article has waited months for a review, I recognize that there was a delay in the review, and I recognize that this probably wasn't a drive-by nomination as you did implement some of my suggestions before the source check. But unfortunately, I have no choice. This review has

Failed Lazman321 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]