| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
it would be good to get an outside opinion on how to proceed with this article. A look at the talk page activity from early on March 24 will show you why. It has undergone a bit of improvement today, particularly in regards to referencing which has affected content and the newly-expanded lead section. Are the tables at the bottom of the article helpful, or clutter? Is the list of cities at the bottom clutter, or useful? Does the article have too many graphics overall, or does it have a reasonable amount of imagery? Do they tie in to the text? How does the text flow? Is the article too repetitive? Is there a better way of arranging the content? We need ideas on how to proceed from an outside observer.
Thanks, Thegreatdr (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)