Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of New Jersey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of New Jersey[edit]

Peer Review

Self-Nomination. Having undergone efforts by Wikiproject NJ and the USCOTW, I think this article is now ready for FACing. The issues on the Peer Review mainly have been resolved. The article provides a thorough exploration of the history of New Jersey. Thanks for all comments. AndyZ 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Andy has been working hard on this article and related NJ History articles. Regardless of what happens in this FAC, I wanted to thank him for the numerous contributions and for getting many others to contribute through the drive to improve this article over the last 6 weeks. The contributions have covered much material that was previously either not covered at all, or was lacking details or depth. I have made some edits to HoNJ, so I will Abstain from voting. Thanks all. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this article is "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable," and so I support it. Thank you AndyZ for all your work on this! Disclaimer: I am one of the top contributors to this article and so may be biased toward it. Cmadler 00:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extremely well-written. From a New Jerseyan, it's good to see a high quality New Jersey article get nominated. - Cuivienen 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, one minor nitpick, the reference should come after the full stop, there is a mix positions of before and after the punctuation in the article. Some of the main article links seem excessive, like those in the subsections in Colonial history, links within the sections (which are already there for most of them) are probably enough. 21st century could probably be further summarised, since the content in this article is identical to that in the 21st century article - alternatively the 21st century article could be redirected to this one, it seems a tad premature for the article given that we are only 6 years into the 21st century.--nixie 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved all of the ref tags to the end of the punctuation mark. I removed the two excessive detail templates you were referring to in the Colonial history section. I will also work on the 21st century section asap. AndyZ 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cut down a bit on the 21st section; is it ok now? AndyZ 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from another New Jerseyan. Although I think that the "21st century" section may be a bit disproportionately long, it's really a judgment call. Andrew Levine 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is slightly long, but I feel that that is necessary because 9/11 was an important recent event that was responsible for a lot of damage in comparison the entire rest of the history of New Jersey. However, I did cut down a bit on the 21st section part. AndyZ 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I want to vote in support of the article, but since I was it's original creator as well as a contributor, (not as much as AndyZ), I feel as if I am biased in the article and therefore should abstain, courteously --ZeWrestler Talk 05:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong at all with voting to support an article you've worked on. Especially when it's a good article. Andrew Levine 06:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article. The summary is very good and it points out all the important information to a reader. --Terence Ong 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very good article --Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is a good article, however, it can still improve. Specifically, I find the article to be a good summary of the events and forces that have influenced New Jersey, however the writing could use a thorough copy-edit. Many of sentences are not constructed well and do not flow well together. However, I do not find this to be object-worthy, so I remain neutral. --maclean25 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has been heavily copyediting by myself and several other users- could you be more explicit when you indicate that it needs a thorough copy-edit? Is there any certain section that requires more copyediting? Thanks, AndyZ 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are doing good work with the copy-editing. I hope you continue, even after its promotion. Specifically, I am referring to those paragraphs that simply state facts but do not relate the paragraph's idea to NJ. For example, the first paragraph of "Early 1900s and World War I" states that Standard Oil was created, then dissolved, controlled much oil, became 34 companies. Better ordering of facts and using transitions could better relate this to how it impacted NJ. I'll elaborate on suggestions for improvements (eg. map for New Sweden, etc.) on the talk page. --maclean25 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    • Notes and references should be separated. As it is it's difficult to pick out the references if you are looking for further reading since they're all mixed in with comments, etc.
    • The sources seem too skewed towards internet sources and while some books are used I think much more of an analysis of the history is done in books. That isn't to say that it makes it wrong... but references like this don't seem to exude trustworthy. I checked the facts with Britannica but every source cited here should be something that we can say, "oh that's a good source" and trust what it says. I don't think this article has that.
    • I think the 21st century is given too much space and isn't well cited. The terrorist attacks part doesn't seem particularly well referenced. I think that some source should be cited about job movement that gives us an idea of the scope and that there has actually been a study done about it. I also am not sure it's the best heading title but, that's not so important.
    • Early colonial history reads choppily and the references aren't there to fill anything in. My problem with that is that convenient sources were found. In my opinion the sources should give you the fact used in the article and knowledge that surrounds that to make sure the writers have the full pictures and choose what is relevant from the data. This also serves for some good further reading for people browsing the encyclopedia.
    • On some images default thumb sizes are overwritten (some are too small). I think Image:Wpdms east west new jersey.png should be redone so it's not as choppy and possible the location finder in the U.S. should be totally removed.
    • All in all this article reads better than Britannica's article. But, I don't think that's enough anymore to become an FA. I really think we need stronger sources even if they produce the exact same article... but, who knows, better sources may produce a better article. The thing is... when you look at a source it needs to be authoritative and trustworthy... a lot of these sites may be right but we can't just assume they're trustworthy. gren グレン ? 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it appears I am too late... Raul just featured it. gren グレン ? 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_New_Jersey&oldid=1071818284"