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

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]