For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year
1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad)
2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age.
3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982.
4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well.
5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO.
6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key.
7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
The Boston Globe review hit a couple of spots that myself and a few others mentioned, see below. I think this review and others show that most reviews are written by fanboys/girls or at the very least they are just charmed by Mr. McCartney. You can tell in all reviews that they are trying to be as upbeat as possible.
"Those who claim McCartney's not lost a note of his estimable range do him no favors by exaggerating. You notice the weather that's come into his singing in exposed moments, even as you marvel at his undimmed skill on piano, bass, and guitar."
"If you've seen McCartney on his recent tours, like those that set Fenway attendance records in 2009 and 2013, you recognized half of the set list here, or more: big production numbers like "Band on the Run," "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Live and Let Die," and "Hey Jude," as well as subtler numbers like "Here Today" in honor of John Lennon, and "Something" on ukulele in George Harrison's memory."
The Newark Star Ledger review was ok but pretty much the standard McCartney review. A brief mention that the band was very "tight" and supplied backup vocals. Review stated he played 38 songs but never mentioned how few were after 1980. Mentioned a few stories he told between songs but it is the same stuff he has been saying for years for the most part. Reviewer made note of the rising platform which was not there for the Metlife concert in summer of 2016. Thought is was funny that the reviewer mentioned McCartney's remark about the crowd reaction to a new song since the newest song he plays is 4 years old unless you count "45 seconds". No mention of his vocal performance which really should be in ever review of a concert. My goodness, don't you want to know the quality of the vocals of the songs that were sung - oh well.
to both comments 
