Wikipedia:Peer review/Montevideo/archive2

Montevideo

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Who would have thought an article on a national capital (in this case, Uruguay's) would make the rounds at WP:Did you know? It was on said section of the Main Page (an impressive 130+ KB, last I checked) when I tagged it for review. Quick-failed twice through WP:GAC, but hey—third time's the charm. It's come a long, long way since those trials, and I've started to make a good opportunity happen. (Some editors have been engaging in an active copyedit; see the talk page.)

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uruguay began to stagnate economically in the mid-1950s; Montevideo began a decline, later exacerbated widespread social and political violence beginning in 1968 (including the emergence of the guerrilla Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros[25]) and by the Civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay (1973-1985). There were major problems with supply; the immigration cycle was reversed."

Rather unexplained. Supply of what? What immigration cycle? Why was it stagnating?

"In 2002, Uruguay suffered one of the worst banking crises in its history, which affected all sectors of Montevideo. Recently, economic improvement and stronger commercial links with neighbouring countries has contributed to economic development."

The worst financial crisis in its history merits a single sentence? Must not have been much of a crisis.

"One such hotel is Belmont House (established 1995), located on the Avenida Rivera in Carrasco.[74] It is set amidst gardens and has 24 rooms and suites and is served by the Restaurant Allegro.[75]"

Are hotel sections standard in city article? It smells like advertisement, but no one seems to have objected before...

"Main article: Port of Montevideo"

If there is no main article...

File:JardinJaponesMVD001 640x480.jpg is pretty terrible. Perhaps you could get a better photo, or at least have someone process it to not be so bright?

The Healthcare section is a mess - red links, needs copyediting, etc. The Media section would make more sense up by Culture. --Gwern (contribs) 01:29 27 November 2010 (GMT)