Good article. Support. 70.57.85.74 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Excellent article. LordViD 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object: Why is the Main article of Law and government, Law and government of Salt Lake City, a red link? If there is more that they are talking about that is missing, can we at least see it? Beyond that, this is a great article, and I look forward to lending my support. Trevdna 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: Had planned to give full support, as this really is a great article. However, Carnildo and Wacky bring up some good points about fair use tags, and "acceptable copyright status" is a prerequsite for what a featured article is. Trevdna 18:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thought it has deserved it for a while now. It is a very well-written article, better even than some featured artcles I've seen, with very informative information. By the way, I removed the red link because there really isn't anything else to say about the law and government of the city. If anybody can come in and create more info on it, I commend them. bob rulz 00:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: This article has caused me alot of heartache and frustration, but I think I've moved on. I would be happy if it became a FA, but the mangled bits of me in the article do not allow me to vote. Good luck. Jon 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Object. There are a number of lists that should be turned to prose. Also, can the references linked to the Salt Lake City government explicitly say that the links are found at that site? I have also seen several external links throughout the main portion of the article. Such links should be within the "external link" section or placed as footnotes. Pentawing 04:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the numerous image problems, I have to change my vote to object until someone can resolve them. Pentawing 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one seems to be willing nor able to resolve some issues, I have gone into the article and cleaned up as many formatting problems as possible. Nevertheless, there is still a handful of lists (I have not idea why there are two neighborhood templates in the article). Given that the images are still a problem, my vote still stands. Pentawing 22:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Object – the article needs to be summarised, list be converted to prose and units should follow the Manual of Style ( ) =Nichalp«Talk»= 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Gayutah2004.jpg is claimed as "fair use". However, it is quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a replacement, so it does not qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use.
Object. Though a very good attempt, and very close, it has some minor problems that need fixing. The Culture section is incredibly messy, featuring a few lists that should be converted to prose, and a lot of red links. Several images have incorrect copyright status and the fair use images are missing fair use rationales. — Wackymacs 10:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This part is unclear: "Councilors are elected under specific issues and are usually well-known. Labor politics play no significant role. The separation of church and state is the most controversial topic with an ongoing Bridging the Religious Divide campaign." Please explain it. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Article is still unstable. Has been edited several times today. Roy Al Blue 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
