Talk:U2 concert in Sarajevo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. 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.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   And it looks like everything's good. Congratulations!