![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I believe that this article is already well on its way to becoming featured article status. Do you guys agree? If so, what kinds of improvements do you guys think could be made to make it so? This article is very thorough compared to some of the other mid-size US cities. What do you guys think? bob rulz 09:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with CHL. IMHO, our article is probably the best midsized western city article there is that I have seen. There are a few problem areas we probably should focus on: Economy, fleshing out the history summary, fleshing out the history article, education (maybe add more about SLC's public schools), and maybe more about culture and religion in SLC (this is probably the one city in the nation where religion and culture are central)...oh and maybe making and/or finding a public domain map. Yes and we could submit it for peer review, too :-D --[[User:JonMoore| JON, Conqueror of Men - ( Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 21:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On public schools: I volunteer to tackle that. Someone wrote articles on East High School (Salt Lake City) and West High School (Salt Lake City) (Actually, I moved them there because there are many East and West Highs nationwide). I often follow Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so I can testify that marginal high school articles are not well-loved on Wikipedia. I've been meaning to improve these (they're not terrible now), and write an article about the district. We could then include a synopsis here (much like we do with history). Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW, how do we go about the peer review process, and what does it entail? I was looking over the page...but then again... [[User:JonMoore| JON, Conqueror of Men - ( Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A couple of SLC-related articles that could use some touching up are History of Salt Lake City and Downtown (Salt Lake City). --[[User:JonMoore| JON, Conqueror of Men - ( Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to let you know the 1.7 million metro population firgue was not incorrect. I included a reference at the bottom of the page entitled "State Analysis of Population Figures", it is located within the introduction pages of the pdf file (page 10). It appears the state government considers the metro area to be Utah, Salt Lake, Davis and Weber counties, however the federal government only considers it Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake counties. I'll let you guys decide which to pick, personally I believe the state's decision to be more precise, I think most people on the Wastach Front would consider everything from Ogden to Provo to be within the metro. Apollomelos 09:13, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I archived the talk page up to the current discussion, as well as added a "to-do" list to direct things...click on the link below the clip board icon to find out how to use it!
The thumbnail followed by the infobox subtracts away from the article, in my opition... possibly simply because the infobox seems to belong more at the top. I suggest trying to find a different way of putting the thumbnail up. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm curious about the implimentation of some of the peer-review suggestions (of which there is another recently added) how exactly do we make the demographics more interesting? I am going to attempt to move the Education history to its own page: Education in Salt Lake City (but feel free to expand on that, or move it back if it seems inappropriate) and maybe expand on the Media a bit...I am tired tonight though, and may not do much... Cheers [[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 06:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 06:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No... you didn't... On another note, I think we are very close to the Featured article status. We have a bit of work to do, but, damn it, i can smell it!!! 07:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I put the article up as a candidate for a featured article. The has only been one objection, from an anonymous ISP user and on the grounds we don't have a description of the city seal... --[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 05:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you guys think it's ready for another submission to become a featured article? There haven't been a lot of major changes made in the past month or so (indicating to me that most people are content with the content, including me). bob rulz 08:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
No. It is still a poor article. I believe the underlying reason for no recent changes is frustration not contentment. Apollomelos 21:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Have you guys considered broadening your sources of information when you research this article? I can tell you really want it to become an featured article, so why don't you check out what your libraries have? See [1] for a list of books at the Library of Congress. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dies anyone else get the feeling that when we get comments on our article, that we get put in a catch-22. Example: Comment: "Education needs expanding" OK, fix fix. Next Comment: "Education should be spun off into its own article and leave a summary because it is too long." Ok, fix fix. Next Comment: "Education is too short, you should expand it." Then I pull my hair out and scream like a madman. --[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 02:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Have a good vacation. Maybe you can add the references for your government section. I believe you wrote most of that. [[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 03:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When you update the history section of the page, could you also update History of Salt Lake City. It seems this page lacks attention (out of sight out of mind, I guess...) I don't have time to do it myself this minute. ALSO: Whenever possible, PLEASE ADD REFERENCES TO THE REFERENCE SECTION!!! This adds veracity to our work! Thanks. --[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have resubmitted this article for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive5 [jon] 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
{Salt Lake City neighborhoods} Footer for neighborhood articles: {Salt Lake City neighborhoods}
{Neighborhoods of Salt Lake City} List of neighborhoods: {Neighborhoods of Salt Lake City}
I already added the footer to all the neighborhood articles. It could be, potentially, expanded to a more general Salt Lake City footer. Comments? --- [jon] [talk] 17:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
{Salt Lake City} {Salt Lake City}
{List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods}
Ok, I updated the footer: {Salt Lake City} Any further comments? -- [jon] [talk] 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what do you think of doing something like this for the various sections: {{Salt Lake City sites}} {Salt Lake City sites} -- [jon] [talk] 13:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link to the very initial entry for SLC from 2001 If anyone cares -- [jon] [talk] 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have edited the article including changed a few pictures. You can visit more images on Wikipedia Commons under Utah. Apollomelos 09:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have put alot of work into this article, inluding taking some of the pictures you removed. Although some of the changes are ok, I think you should have gotten a consensus before making such drastic changes. Also, the current layout does not reflect that set up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Some of your changes and pictures are good, but I hope you will not be offended if I revert some of them. Also, there is now a WikiProject for Utah-related articles: Wikipedia: WikiProject Utah. -- [jon] [talk] 12:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do like the Olympic pics, but if this is ever a featured article, an open source picture is needed for the front page. I think we should keep the Olympic-dressed downtown pic, but perhaps swap it with something else: the lead image should not be fairuse only. Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK. Two sections that seem out of hand compared to their importance are "Climate" and "Communications and media". Jon seems to be breaking out Climate now, but media is dying to be moved and summarized. Would anyone object to moving List of Salt Lake City media to Salt Lake Media and naming it as the primary article? The list would just be in the bottom section of the new article and it would eliminate some strain here.
Also, I find it odd that one of the smallest cities in America with two daily newspapers instead shows a picture of the alt weekly even though the circulation of it is dwarfed by both of the dailies' Sunday distribution. That should be moved to the sub article if we make it. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Again, when you rewrite a section, make sure you rewrite (or create) a new subarticle for the section, so no important info is lost. Thanks. -- [jon] [talk] 20:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, there certainly a lot of photos on this page now. I think this may require some ordering-- it screws up the layout in places throughout the article (two columns of photos on the right, text-over-text). How about some sort of running table down theright with a consistent string of photos showing the city throughout history? The other photos could then appear in context on the left. Another point, do we really need a picture of a UTA bus? I mena, it's a bus... Another point (for which I will probably get labelled un-PC), but the picture of the Utah Pride festival does nothing-- I see neither Utah, nor Pride, nor anyone being festive or parading. I see some baloons next to a swimming pool. It's the equivalent of showing a picture of New Orleans busstation under "Mardi Gras". Can we either a) get a better picture, or b) ditch the picture? Davejenk1ns 08:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What part of the article needs fixing? Let's get this thing featured. lol :-) Apollomelos 21:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Probably not. The trivia should be combined into the appropriate sections, but I don't think the others should be combined. -- [jon] [talk] 22:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have a few suggestions and would like additional input.
Apollomelos 22:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of this:
Apollomelos 23:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this is a good layout, except that Sports should go up under Culture & Attractions. Val42 03:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think wee need to worry less about the layout of the article and more about its content. There is a clear, concise layout set forth in WikiProject Cities which lays things out in a logical order. We need to work on the sections and subarticles. The subarticles especially need attention. I hope I didn't come off too harsh above, but I really don't think layout is the most important issue for reaching FA status. -- [jon] ;[talk;] 13:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We have many sections not included in the layout guidelines. The placement of climate should be near geography - it is logical. At the present time the article is poorly organized and filled with redundant statements. Apollomelos 21:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am reverting bob rulz's revert to this article for the following reasons:
Re: the Utah War. You've included this in the lead section which I think is very odd.
Salt Lake City wasn't in rebellion, the whole territory was. This should go into thw history article, and Utah history, and Utah War, but not into the lead section of Salt Lake City. At most it deserves a mention in the History section, but it shouldn't be written to give the mistaken impression that only Salt Lake City was the problem. What the hell is your definition of a "major city" anyways? In 1857 Salt Lake had—my sources suggest—about 8000 residents. At that time there were over 100 larger American cities. [6] Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps there's some technical/legal distinction between declaring a city in rebellion, and a territory, or it was the first time a territory with such a city did so? In any event, I'm speculating (couldn't find a reference on this after some cursory googling), and I agree that at minimum this should be phrased more clearly. Alai 02:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I believe that this article is already well on its way to becoming featured article status. Do you guys agree? If so, what kinds of improvements do you guys think could be made to make it so? This article is very thorough compared to some of the other mid-size US cities. What do you guys think? bob rulz 09:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with CHL. IMHO, our article is probably the best midsized western city article there is that I have seen. There are a few problem areas we probably should focus on: Economy, fleshing out the history summary, fleshing out the history article, education (maybe add more about SLC's public schools), and maybe more about culture and religion in SLC (this is probably the one city in the nation where religion and culture are central)...oh and maybe making and/or finding a public domain map. Yes and we could submit it for peer review, too :-D --[[User:JonMoore| JON, Conqueror of Men - ( Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 21:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On public schools: I volunteer to tackle that. Someone wrote articles on East High School (Salt Lake City) and West High School (Salt Lake City) (Actually, I moved them there because there are many East and West Highs nationwide). I often follow Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so I can testify that marginal high school articles are not well-loved on Wikipedia. I've been meaning to improve these (they're not terrible now), and write an article about the district. We could then include a synopsis here (much like we do with history). Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW, how do we go about the peer review process, and what does it entail? I was looking over the page...but then again... [[User:JonMoore| JON, Conqueror of Men - ( Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A couple of SLC-related articles that could use some touching up are History of Salt Lake City and Downtown (Salt Lake City). --[[User:JonMoore| JON, Conqueror of Men - ( Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to let you know the 1.7 million metro population firgue was not incorrect. I included a reference at the bottom of the page entitled "State Analysis of Population Figures", it is located within the introduction pages of the pdf file (page 10). It appears the state government considers the metro area to be Utah, Salt Lake, Davis and Weber counties, however the federal government only considers it Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake counties. I'll let you guys decide which to pick, personally I believe the state's decision to be more precise, I think most people on the Wastach Front would consider everything from Ogden to Provo to be within the metro. Apollomelos 09:13, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I archived the talk page up to the current discussion, as well as added a "to-do" list to direct things...click on the link below the clip board icon to find out how to use it!
The thumbnail followed by the infobox subtracts away from the article, in my opition... possibly simply because the infobox seems to belong more at the top. I suggest trying to find a different way of putting the thumbnail up. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm curious about the implimentation of some of the peer-review suggestions (of which there is another recently added) how exactly do we make the demographics more interesting? I am going to attempt to move the Education history to its own page: Education in Salt Lake City (but feel free to expand on that, or move it back if it seems inappropriate) and maybe expand on the Media a bit...I am tired tonight though, and may not do much... Cheers [[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 06:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 06:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No... you didn't... On another note, I think we are very close to the Featured article status. We have a bit of work to do, but, damn it, i can smell it!!! 07:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I put the article up as a candidate for a featured article. The has only been one objection, from an anonymous ISP user and on the grounds we don't have a description of the city seal... --[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 05:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you guys think it's ready for another submission to become a featured article? There haven't been a lot of major changes made in the past month or so (indicating to me that most people are content with the content, including me). bob rulz 08:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
No. It is still a poor article. I believe the underlying reason for no recent changes is frustration not contentment. Apollomelos 21:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Have you guys considered broadening your sources of information when you research this article? I can tell you really want it to become an featured article, so why don't you check out what your libraries have? See [1] for a list of books at the Library of Congress. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dies anyone else get the feeling that when we get comments on our article, that we get put in a catch-22. Example: Comment: "Education needs expanding" OK, fix fix. Next Comment: "Education should be spun off into its own article and leave a summary because it is too long." Ok, fix fix. Next Comment: "Education is too short, you should expand it." Then I pull my hair out and scream like a madman. --[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 02:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Have a good vacation. Maybe you can add the references for your government section. I believe you wrote most of that. [[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 03:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When you update the history section of the page, could you also update History of Salt Lake City. It seems this page lacks attention (out of sight out of mind, I guess...) I don't have time to do it myself this minute. ALSO: Whenever possible, PLEASE ADD REFERENCES TO THE REFERENCE SECTION!!! This adds veracity to our work! Thanks. --[[User:JonMoore| Jon, Conqueror of Men | ( Talk!)]] 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have resubmitted this article for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive5 [jon] 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
{Salt Lake City neighborhoods} Footer for neighborhood articles: {Salt Lake City neighborhoods}
{Neighborhoods of Salt Lake City} List of neighborhoods: {Neighborhoods of Salt Lake City}
I already added the footer to all the neighborhood articles. It could be, potentially, expanded to a more general Salt Lake City footer. Comments? --- [jon] [talk] 17:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
{Salt Lake City} {Salt Lake City}
{List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods}
Ok, I updated the footer: {Salt Lake City} Any further comments? -- [jon] [talk] 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what do you think of doing something like this for the various sections: {{Salt Lake City sites}} {Salt Lake City sites} -- [jon] [talk] 13:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Link to the very initial entry for SLC from 2001 If anyone cares -- [jon] [talk] 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have edited the article including changed a few pictures. You can visit more images on Wikipedia Commons under Utah. Apollomelos 09:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have put alot of work into this article, inluding taking some of the pictures you removed. Although some of the changes are ok, I think you should have gotten a consensus before making such drastic changes. Also, the current layout does not reflect that set up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Some of your changes and pictures are good, but I hope you will not be offended if I revert some of them. Also, there is now a WikiProject for Utah-related articles: Wikipedia: WikiProject Utah. -- [jon] [talk] 12:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do like the Olympic pics, but if this is ever a featured article, an open source picture is needed for the front page. I think we should keep the Olympic-dressed downtown pic, but perhaps swap it with something else: the lead image should not be fairuse only. Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK. Two sections that seem out of hand compared to their importance are "Climate" and "Communications and media". Jon seems to be breaking out Climate now, but media is dying to be moved and summarized. Would anyone object to moving List of Salt Lake City media to Salt Lake Media and naming it as the primary article? The list would just be in the bottom section of the new article and it would eliminate some strain here.
Also, I find it odd that one of the smallest cities in America with two daily newspapers instead shows a picture of the alt weekly even though the circulation of it is dwarfed by both of the dailies' Sunday distribution. That should be moved to the sub article if we make it. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Again, when you rewrite a section, make sure you rewrite (or create) a new subarticle for the section, so no important info is lost. Thanks. -- [jon] [talk] 20:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, there certainly a lot of photos on this page now. I think this may require some ordering-- it screws up the layout in places throughout the article (two columns of photos on the right, text-over-text). How about some sort of running table down theright with a consistent string of photos showing the city throughout history? The other photos could then appear in context on the left. Another point, do we really need a picture of a UTA bus? I mena, it's a bus... Another point (for which I will probably get labelled un-PC), but the picture of the Utah Pride festival does nothing-- I see neither Utah, nor Pride, nor anyone being festive or parading. I see some baloons next to a swimming pool. It's the equivalent of showing a picture of New Orleans busstation under "Mardi Gras". Can we either a) get a better picture, or b) ditch the picture? Davejenk1ns 08:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What part of the article needs fixing? Let's get this thing featured. lol :-) Apollomelos 21:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Probably not. The trivia should be combined into the appropriate sections, but I don't think the others should be combined. -- [jon] [talk] 22:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have a few suggestions and would like additional input.
Apollomelos 22:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of this:
Apollomelos 23:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this is a good layout, except that Sports should go up under Culture & Attractions. Val42 03:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think wee need to worry less about the layout of the article and more about its content. There is a clear, concise layout set forth in WikiProject Cities which lays things out in a logical order. We need to work on the sections and subarticles. The subarticles especially need attention. I hope I didn't come off too harsh above, but I really don't think layout is the most important issue for reaching FA status. -- [jon] ;[talk;] 13:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We have many sections not included in the layout guidelines. The placement of climate should be near geography - it is logical. At the present time the article is poorly organized and filled with redundant statements. Apollomelos 21:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am reverting bob rulz's revert to this article for the following reasons:
Re: the Utah War. You've included this in the lead section which I think is very odd.
Salt Lake City wasn't in rebellion, the whole territory was. This should go into thw history article, and Utah history, and Utah War, but not into the lead section of Salt Lake City. At most it deserves a mention in the History section, but it shouldn't be written to give the mistaken impression that only Salt Lake City was the problem. What the hell is your definition of a "major city" anyways? In 1857 Salt Lake had—my sources suggest—about 8000 residents. At that time there were over 100 larger American cities. [6] Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps there's some technical/legal distinction between declaring a city in rebellion, and a territory, or it was the first time a territory with such a city did so? In any event, I'm speculating (couldn't find a reference on this after some cursory googling), and I agree that at minimum this should be phrased more clearly. Alai 02:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |