Talk:Let It Be

The Proofreading Service has proofreaded your article. Like it? Need more proofreading? Click here!

First Review

Humour:	7	Going on what you have here, some of the track listings are funny, though I'd replace the ones with snot humo(u)r. Those don't have the same giggle value as "I mime, me, mime, me, mime, me, damnet!" Also, the previous/following albums could be changed; perhaps relying more on a play of Beatle album names? As for the Yoko Ono reference, I'd probably place that later in the article and talk about the album itself more in the opening paragraph.
Concept:	7	I'm surprised that more of this format (the table on the right) hasn't been seen on this site. It lends itself to being ripe for comedy. I like the direction you're going in with this. What I would recommend is perhaps doing a complete parody of the Wikipedia entry for let it be, reading over their version and playing off that format. Especially considering the mess that Phil Spector is in now and how many hate what he did with the album, he would be a prime comedic target for the WHOLE article.
Prose and formatting:	9	Not much to say here. It's fine so far.
Images:	6	I'm torn on the cat picture. It can be great if you can find pics of the band in the studio and replace Paul with the cat each time (perhaps with really bad "meow" captions). Also, in relation to the "Concept" score, pics of Phil Spector stoned out of his mind would be great. Maybe also Yoko singing and causing something to shatter.
Miscellaneous:	7	YAY! I'M BEING USED IN TOILET HUMOR!!! HA-ZAA!! I'VE ARRIVED!!!!!! Hey...wait a sec...
Final Score:	36	I like the direction in which you're going. There's not much else I can say on this right now, but you have a good start on it.
Reviewer:	--Mr.Vib 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd Review

Humour:	7	About the same as last time. What could be done is taking the second paragraph and paragraphs 3-5, making them separate sections, and expanding upon them. Right now, it reads like a teaser, showing a basic overview and not much else. Take some more of the real-life materials and make fun of them (which you do a little with the Phil Spector bit and the McCartney-Lennon-Ono spat), perhaps skewring the band's breakup right after releasing the album.
Concept:	7	No change here, either, except for the format. I see what you have done here, basing it off the style done in the other album articles on here. However, considering all the problems behind this album, the mess of a movie to accompany it, the "Paul is Dead" hoax, the soon-to-be break-up of the band, AND the whole Phil Spector angle, this one really has potential to be more. Work on a section a day, think about materials to use, and study the history of the band and this album for more material. Spreading the work out over a few days rather then trying to do everythying in one setting gives you the potential to think of more material.
Prose and formatting:	10	Still fine.
Images:	6	The images are better. You may want to try to make the pics more linked. By that, I mean try to replace Paul with a pic of a cat like the one in the album cover. If you don't have photoshop to do this, perhaps you could ask one of the other Uncyclopedians who does to help you here, possibly finding the base picture to use and sending it to them. (I don't have photoshop, so I can't help.) If not, what you have will work.
Miscellaneous:	7	Moo.
Final Score:	37	Keep working. Get some more input on this than just me, as well. The Thinker or others like that do very well.
Reviewer:	--Mr.Vib 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd Review

Humour:	6	Well, some parts are amusing; much is kind of random and run-on.
Concept:	6	Articles on albums are OK, but not inherently good concepts.
Prose and formatting:	4	Ow. This needs fixing. See endnotes.
Images:	5	The image of the album cover with Paul replaced by a cat is nice. The other two pics are not very good. Get someone to paste a cat's head on Paul in the black-and-white; the purple cartoon kitty does not cut the mustard.
Miscellaneous:	6	Right now I'm feeling lukewarm about this article. It needs work.
Final Score:	27
Reviewer:

Not reviewed yet!
Review now

Endnotes:

Grammar and spelling: "Not only they played on somebody's roof, they were lipsinking the entire time" is not good English. "Not only were they playing on somebody's roof" would be correct. There is no such thing as lipsinking; what you mean is lip syncing (two words). Haloween is Halloween. I notice that you spell alcohol incorrectly in two places but correctly in another, so I know you know better! It's just attention to detail.

Intangible stuff like flow: Sentence structure is, of course, largely a matter of style and taste. But a strangely structured sentence can really throw a reader off track, and encourage him to stop reading and click that old Random page link.

The sentence "There is a sequel to it, Let It Be... Naked which is praised for being produced by George Martin, not Phil Spector who killed some girl" is just that kind of strangely-structured sentence. It seems to me that "There is a sequel to Let It Be, called Let It Be...Naked!" is the main statement of the sentence. The next bit, "...which is praised for being produced by George Martin", is a subclause -- a child-phrase tacked on to the end of the main statement. And "...not Phil Spector" is a child tacked onto that, while "...who killed some girl" is yet another add-on to the sub-sub-clause.

All this is to say, it's a weak, run-on sentence. Your real point may be to slam Phil Spector, and if that's the case, then for the sake of God and the reader make that point in a strong sentence dedicated to that purpose. Rewrite!

One way to do that might be:

The highly-praised sequel to Let It Be was named Let It Be...Naked!. It showed not only Ringo's famous chest hair but also George Harrison's exceptionally shapely bum. The real draw, however, was that George Martin edged out Phil Spector as producer of Let It Be...Naked! Everyone knew Spector would end up killing some girl. He was just that kind of guy.

You can rewrite it however you want, of course; do it as your sense of style dictates. But I would strongly advise rewrites. You might get advice from Ceridwyn's Proofreading Service.

----OEJ 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

4th Review

Humour:	7	A little disjointed, but some good funny. I especially like the Phil Spector humor.
Concept:	7	I seem to recall the movie section being funnier before..
Prose and formatting:	8	Works for what you're trying to accomplish
Images:	7	Not bad, I like. I also had heard about Paul actually being a cat..
Miscellaneous:	8	Keeping at it!
Final Score:	37	Still an enjoyable piece.
Reviewer:	THINKER 06:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still like this piece a lot. I think the changes you've been making are helping the work overall. Do you have the original review I did somewhere? The link is dead, but I'd like to refer to my previous end notes before advising further. --THINKER 06:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since It was old, I got it deleted, but for historical purposes, I guess we could restore it. And actually, I don't think you reviewed it than (which is fine), but the first two times, it was reviewed my Mr.Vib and than it was reviewed by One-eyed Jack.--Sir Manforman 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I contacted, a sysop, and hopefully, it should be recovered soon--Sir Manforman 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, indeed I did not review it that first time. I'd say then, continue to flesh the piece. Its lengthy enough, and has sections, pictures, etc., but it still needs to be filled in. The prose is offbeat and works here, but it needs to be used more in certain areas in order to continue the flow of humor throughout. I'd say get the Movie and rooftop concert sections more up to speed so it flows with the rest, and after that, maybe go through and extract some information that isn't laugh out loud-type funny (like parts of the break-up section; some could be changed, but it doesn't all need to go). --THINKER 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the infobox? If you think that needs work, I'll go head and do so.--Sir Manforman 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, would it be fine just removing the weak parts, or do you think I should work on those sections? I think it would probably long enough anyways. --Sir Manforman 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done some fixing to the article, and I removed the weak sections for now.--Sir Manforman 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

5th Pee Review

Humour:	2	The humour in this piece is minimalistically small to the point of being nonexistent. I do not comprehend the jokes about Phil Spector, and get the overall impression that I would need a degree in the history of recent popular music to understand the point of the majority of the sentences in the article.
Concept:	2	I fail to see the point of this article. The article ends in the same manner as it started, namely, terribly.
Prose and formatting:	8	On the whole, the article is neatly presented, well formatted, and cleanly structured. However, despite it being only a CD listing, it is just a little thin on the ground, text-wise.
Images:	5	All of the photos in this article involve the Beatles, with (I think) Paul McCartney transmogrified into some horrific Man-cat. I do not understand why this is so.
Miscellaneous:	6	The article scores well, spelling wise, but grammar is a little shaky at times. I don't like red links.
Final Score:	23	On the whole, this article is like a collage - bits and bobs, here and there, not making much sense at all. It really lacks a vision of what the article is meant to be; it lacks direction, instead descending into some cringe-worthy panorama of sheer randomness. I think you need to start afresh, and think what you plan to get out of this article.
Reviewer:	--The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 23:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)