Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Let It Be (song)/1

Let It Be (song) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: Delist. The article has been improved but there is still work to be done on the lead and prose (repetition and trivia). Geometry guy 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been three years since this article received its good article status, and changes since may have put it out of good article quality. Hopefully, someone can clean this up enough to retain its status but, as is, I don't think it qualifies. The issues are primarily about verifiablity:

Statement in the second paragraph of what countries the song reached number one.
Statement about McCartney complaints about Spector's production (comment was sourced before but now it isn't?)
Sections on film and anthology versions
Versions used on bootlegs in the 'Unused mixes' section
Placement or need of the number-one single succession boxes
Worst of all, the list of selected cover versions
A standardized style of listing references seems to have gone unchecked

Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: There was a problem with the transclusion/templates for this GAR, so I have re-created it, on behalf of Starcheerspeaksnews (talk · contribs) Chzz ► 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Be Bold, and fix it yourself. --andreasegde (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. So I'll just delete everything that is unsourced. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could find the sources! Cavie78 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, you brought this up by reassessing the article. You should fix the article yourself, as you seem concerned about its status. If not, you are giving us the idea that Wikipedia is now run by status policemen, who have the authority to complain about an article's status, but not actually do any work to fix it. You could improve your edit count rating (20,863) by doing something yourself. --andreasegde (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting the messenger is among the most unhelpful of common human errors. This is an article that has deteriorated considerably in quality since it was listed in October 2007. In the intervening years the article has acquired cruft, unsourced and list-like content, and a lead which no longer summarizes the article, although there have been beneficial changes too. It is in need of some TLC. No one is obliged to provide that, and the article has clearly been neglected by many, but Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' kind offer to delete all unsourced material is already a step towards improving the article.

Be that as it may, articles which no longer meet the GA criteria do not remain listed as good articles, so if nobody does fix it soon, it will be delisted. Those who believe that this common-sense position is unacceptable are not obliged to participate in the good articles process. Geometry guy 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, so now you (Geometry guy) and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars can both work on it. --andreasegde (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did. If that's not enough then the GA should be removed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. I looked at it and you did a good job. Well done.--andreasegde (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]