Talk:U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky/GA1

GA Review

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

Right, I am reading through now and am making straightforward changes as I go. Please revert any where I inadvertently change the meaning. Queries below. Also, don't automatically do what I suggest - if you think otherwise please say so and we can discuss. :) |1=Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are alotta "Red Rocks" floating about the text. I will try to reduce some repetition if I can.

• Please note that the information about Red Rocks having assigned seating, but switching this show to General Admission is inaccurate. Aside from a very few reserved seats, the venue is and always has been general admission. I was at the show. I did not edit the text, but that bit is currently not accurate.

• However, only 15 minutes of footage was permitted to be used, as unions objected to not enough representation in the crew that supported the concert, and a compromise was reached to allow a portion of the concert. - I changed a word and then realised I couldn't follow what this sentence was on about really - comes across as a bit confused.

Not enough union representation on the concert crew meant the union objected to the film being used on The Tube as originally intended. Thus, a compromise was sought and only 15 minutes were allowed, instead of the entire concert. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the Release section, I'd probably do away with the 2008 remastered DVD subsection as the sections are a bit small. Two paras is fine but this is not a deal-breaker.

• Comprehensiveness-wise, is there any material where someone (either the band themselves or a rock critic) has reviewed the performance as typical of a usual U2 performance? Do they think they played extra well/badly/different for the cameras? If it doesn't exist, don't sweat it.

I'd say the film accurately represents the band's live act. Much of the reviews/comments on the concert that I've read have called it a special night on which the band was in top-flight form. I can add a few details as I find them. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall, a good read and likely to pass GA readily. A few quibbles above is about it. I'll stick up the criteria a bit later when you're around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)