Misplaced Pages

:Peer review/Singapore Changi Airport/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Peer review | Singapore Changi Airport Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:59, 2 November 2006 editThadius856 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,123 edits Proposal  Revision as of 04:59, 2 November 2006 edit undoThadius856 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,123 edits Forgot to sign it :)Next edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
Also, I'd really like to see something worked out for the first paragraph. It's extremely cluttered and is almost unbearably painful to look at, let alone read. In my opinion, the Airlines subsection should be moved up to its own section and reformatted, but I'd like some feedback on that. Also, I'd really like to see something worked out for the first paragraph. It's extremely cluttered and is almost unbearably painful to look at, let alone read. In my opinion, the Airlines subsection should be moved up to its own section and reformatted, but I'd like some feedback on that.


Hopefully we can get it in shape enough to be a good article candidate! Hopefully we can get it in shape enough to be a good article candidate! ]<sub>]</sub> 04:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:59, 2 November 2006

Singapore Changi Airport

I'd like to see the article become a bit more streamlined. In its current state, its very unpleasing to the eyes and looks very plain with all of the images and tables on the right side of the page. Perhaps some fiddling with size is also is in order.

Also, I'd really like to see something worked out for the first paragraph. It's extremely cluttered and is almost unbearably painful to look at, let alone read. In my opinion, the Airlines subsection should be moved up to its own section and reformatted, but I'd like some feedback on that.

Hopefully we can get it in shape enough to be a good article candidate! thadius856talk 04:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)