The prose is fine, except the flow of the sentences and paragraphs could be improved a bit, but overall it is reasonably well written. As for MOS, there are a few red links that could be removed, as those subjects probably aren't notable enough to have an article. I also fixed several grammatical and punctuation errors, as well as some formatting errors.
The main problem with this requirement is the sources. Looking through them, I see that a few are the band's website, U2.com. This is not a third-party source, and therefore should only be used in very limited circumstances.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The only thing is the singles section should be expanded, possibly including chart positions, if notable. Also, I did not see a singles chart table. There is a non-singles chart, but I am confused as to why this chart includes "Magnificent", which is a single according to the infobox.
The article conforms with all the GA requirements, save the reliable sources one. It's not enough to weigh down the rest, so I'll pass it, and hopefully the editors who frequent this article will take action on my suggestions. Good luck with the article in the future. Timmeh! 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone may let their thoughts be known here, as long as they relate to this GA review. Timmeh! 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review and the pass. I'll take a look at those red links and try to substitute the U2.com references for other sources where applicable. I'll bring over the singles chart from "Get on Your Boots" to meet your recommendation as well. In regards to "Magnificent", while it has not yet been released as a single it has been announced as the next one. If I recall correctly from the talk page, the intent is to keep it listed as a non-single until the day of release. Thanks again for the review! MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)