At least on my browser, the images on the right force the table down so there's a full page of whitespace. A possible solution is not enforce column/table widths, you really shouldn't need to anyway.
Removed the column and table widths.
Do we need two columns for area, or can they be combined, stacked on one another?
::Probably better as two separate columns, for sortability and navigation reasons throughout the table.
You can still have it sort by km, we have sort templates. --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, that's a lot of work for a little difference. I think the list is fine the way it is. Albacore (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Now combined into one column. Albacore (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure we need the coordinates, either; we have the map, and if someone needs the coordinates of the city center they can click through to the article, since they're all bluelinked. But I won't push for that, just offering it as a discussion possibility. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There's three or four red links in the table, and having them really doesn't hurt anything. I wouldn't say they're essential, but they help. Albacore (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I see this has been mentioned above, but I do think it would make more sense to merge the area columns using the convert template, I appreciate that would be a lot of work, but having two columns seems redundant when they can be accommodated in one using the template
WP:CONTEXTLINK frowns upon bold linking, I know this is a consequence of scope row etc, so would add plainrowheaders to wikitable sortable entry to fix the issue.
Support suberb list.--GoPTCN 16:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Image review – No problems found with the photos. I only did a spot check on the maps, but they appear all to be the work of the same editor. I'll assume therefore, that they're all fine too. Goodraise 23:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)