Wikipedia:Peer review/Get Back/archive1

Get Back
This article has been on FAC a couple of times, but never manages to make it. There are no objections, but few support votes either. Anyone got ideas for putting this over the top, or will resubmitting it just do? Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article seems a bit non-notable -- a bit long winded for just a single song. The best thing to do would be to pare it down, in my estimation. Joshuaschroeder 02:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Put it up again and I'll support. Fredrik | talk 01:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me too. Could have something on the recording sessions - although they finally went for the one on the roof, didn't they do some versions of this inside? Also, since this is a British topic, it should be in British English? - the quotation marks are all over the place! (anyway, this is easily sorted:) ) Let me know when it's next on FAC and (even if I have to correct the quotation marks myself;), I'll support, jguk 23:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, did you miss the details on recording sessions in the first two sections? The second is even titled "Recording, in the studio and on the roof". Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On my initial skim, I find two factual errors in the lead paragragh.

First, the lead says that the song was initially released on the Let It Be LP, when of course the single release was a year earlier. Later, this is mentioned, contradicting the lead paragraph.

Secondly, the bit about stereo is wrong. The Beatles didn't record in stereo at all, they mixed their recordings in mono and stereo. "She Loves You" was never released in stereo during the Beatles' career, but this is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with "Get Back". "Get Back" was the first stereo single purely because 45 RPM records were beginning to be released in stereo in 1969.

Also, I don't think the bit about finding "Get Back" bootlegs in 2003 belongs here. People have been bootlegging the "Get Back" sessions for thirty-odd years now -- what makes this particular bust important enough to get on the song's page?

If I get a chance, I'll take a stab at some edits. Bjimba 19:31, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * How is the article now? Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)