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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Salt Lake City, Utah[edit]

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|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 02:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Note: Old PR's can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive2.[reply]

It has some strong areas and some weak ones, here are some things I think could still be worked on:

  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===</nowiki>
  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.

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)[reply]

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|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  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.

I promise to review it once the above are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)