Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salt Lake City, Utah/Achive1


 * This is a self-nomination. I believe this article exemplifies a very well written city page and is one of the better examples on Wikipedia. It has been worked on by about 4 regular contributors (mostly locals, including myself) and has been through the peer review process. We implemented many of the suggestions and feel it is ready for featured status. Of course, any constructive criticism along the way is very welcome also. --Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 22:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. There is no description about the seal of the city. --202.75.80.8 01:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. I've addressed that. (I'm one of the other partial self-nominators, by the way). Cool Hand Luke  07:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Culture, Media, History, and Government sections too short. One source isn't sufficient. But it's getting there. User:Neutrality/talk 06:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's sources you guys need, then a quick search of the Library of Congress Online catalogue pulls up quite a few resources. America is a great country (I'm not an American) and you have great library resources. I urge you all to use them! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, there ARE more sources than that for the history: History of Salt Lake City.  Also, as to your objections about the shortness of certain sections, they were shortened because of the 32K limit and previous suggestions from peer review. and spun off into their own articles, for example: History: History of Salt Lake City, Media: Salt Lake City in film and List of Salt Lake City media. --Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!) 19:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added more references that I have used. See: Salt Lake City, Utah for these. There are now six (6).
 * Object. Wacky formatting on my browser and the media section is still insufficient. The article is good, but not nearly as good as Sarajevo, which is the FA standard for city articles. Neutralitytalk 03:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's your browser...and can you vote twice? [[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 19:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't voting, it's objecting/supporting. :) Neutralitytalk 19:00, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, but the way your browser sees the article doesn't seem like a good reason. And as I said, many of the sections you say are to short were pared down on suggestion from peer review because they were too long. Sounds like a Catch 22. And what does enarly mean? --[[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 19:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)