Talk:U2 concert in Sarajevo/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Annalise (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'm going to be reviewing this article over the next few days.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * My only concern is about the set list: the manual of style says that lists should only be included if they cannot be integrated into the prose, and it seems like the set list is already well-integrated. I have more details in the section on images.
 * And those are fixed!
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Looks good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Everything seems fine to me, but I don't know very much about the Bosnian War, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was something related to that that I didn't catch.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Most of the images look good, and although it would be nice to have an actual image of the concert, I can understand if that isn't possible. I'm a little confused, though, about the set list image. I don't think that it's necessary to have both the set list in text and in an image. Honestly, I think the section above the lists goes over the songs that were played quite well.
 * The image was originally included since it showed that the band had considered playing an additional song, but that it did not make the setlist. I agree with your comments though, so I've integrated it into the prose instead and removed both the setlist section and the image. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, that makes SO much more sense. I figured it was something like that, but I'm glad you fixed it. The article looks much better now. Annalise (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was originally included since it showed that the band had considered playing an additional song, but that it did not make the setlist. I agree with your comments though, so I've integrated it into the prose instead and removed both the setlist section and the image. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, that makes SO much more sense. I figured it was something like that, but I'm glad you fixed it. The article looks much better now. Annalise (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * And it looks like everything's good. Congratulations!