Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive3

Salt Lake City, Utah
I am re-resubmitting this article for peer review. It has changed alot, for better or for worst. There was quite a bit of struggle over this article, with people going in and making giant changes, thinking they were improving, but not necessarially helping. I feel like the article is somewhat of a mess right now, and have taken quite a long break from it, persuing other articles in the interim. I would like to dive back into it, but I really would like some perspectives. Thanks --[[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 02:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Note: Old PR's can be found at: Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive1 and Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive2.

It has some strong areas and some weak ones, here are some things I think could still be worked on: More generally I think all stats should have inline citations, and all the images need to have GFDL compatible copyrights. --nixie 09:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd move the demographic information out of the history section, it's getting pretty long and I'm not sure its relevant there.
 * 2) The climate section is disproportionately long
 * 3) The law and government section is very short
 * 4) Arts and culture, I'd turn the lists into prose and include all those single sentence paragraphs
 * 5) Education doesn't need to be broken up with <nowiki===h3===
 * 6) Demographics is a well written section, I think it should follow after the economy section rather than being at the end of the article.
 * Thanks for the input. At one time, all the pics on the page were GDFL-compatible, but, as I said, someone (who has since left Wikipedia) went in and put "better pics" which he found on a site somewhere. I can probably go in and change them back. --[[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In its current state it won't make it to the FA list. I won't review the text, but I'll comment on the presentation for now. I promise to review it once the above are taken care of. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The infobox should be promoted to the leadin.
 * 2) The infoboxmap seems to be blown out. Please correct it.
 * 3) The inline referencing you've used is incorrect. See for example the Australia article for the correct referencing.
 * 4) Page size: 41 kb. On the long side. So summarise it and cut the unwanted stuff such as specifics. Its much easier to read a nice summary rather than boring incidents. 30 kb is a sweet spot.
 * 5) Right-align the images, its easier to read the text that way
 * 6) Law and government has a badly done table. In general all the tables have bad margins.
 * 7) Get rid of the subheadings, it makes the page look untidy.