Wikipedia:Peer review/2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy/archive1

2017–18 Bergen County eruv controversy

I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC in due course and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

Just starting to read through. Looks to be of the usual quality.

• The use of tense in the lead is slightly confusing, or at least to me, as anyway I was also encountering a lot of new terms. I would gave the date as to when Vazquez made his pronouncement - as this could bridge between the past tense in the preceding paragraphs, and the switch to the present just after ("Upper Saddle River has announced" etc).

Fine.

• Maybe explain what an Eruv is in parentheses in the opening paragraph

For lede purposes, possibly the "ritual boundary" and the link will have to do until the background section. See the "nutshell" argument to your next point.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• could "prevent" be linked to the appropriate legal term, eg injunction, or somesuch

They mostly used the sign ordinances, that forbid or restrict signs, defining signs as things that convey information, which the lechis of an eruv do. This may be too much to put in the nutshell that the initial part of the lede should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• "be taken down to the extent it had been raised" - this also confused me. Is it legal phrasing?

No, it's just that there was a different situation in Montvale, where the work was stopped before it began.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• In background, would the opening "The townships" para be better placed just before the "In Teaneck" para

I looked at it. While, arguably, it eliminates one of the two changes of subject in the section, it does rather drop the reader in deep water right at the outset. I'll give it further thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• ...eruvin (the plural, sometimes rendered "eruvim") - this seems it would better serve in the notes

I'm just not sure it's worth adding a notes section to accommodate five words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• This makes rabbinic supervision and regular inspection a must. what does "This" refer to here, the tractate? Should "a must" (with vague intonations of fashion) be "compulsory"

I would not think the Orthodox would accept an eruv that did not have rabbinic supervision. But I don't know that for a fact. I've added "complexity" after ""This".

• In Teaneck, in southeastern Bergen County and home to large numbers of Orthodox Jews, - something amiss here, "Teaneck, in southeastern Bergen County, is home..."?

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "Orthodox Jews in Rockland County gained" is very long, and could be broken in two

Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• "lack of a road" - "lack of continuous road"?

As far as I know there isn't any road exactly on the state line, though some come close, i.e. Hillside Avenue in Upper Saddle River, NJ/the Town of Ramapo, New York, which sort of ducks and weaves. Saying "continuous" would imply to some, perhaps, that there are roads on the state line for some of the distance.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• "became known in mid-July" - became public

I've added "generally". It does not appear that it was secret.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• More later Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

The usual high standard as always, so what follows is scrabbling round to be nit-picking:

Background

• The Bergen County map isn't too clear, and when clicked on needs a bit of hunting round to find the right places. Perhaps a version with the relevant municipalities outlined in red? (or some other indication)
• I had to read this a couple of times for full understanding, but I think that is more my lack of knowledge of Jewish practice and terminology than anything related to the text.
• "Normally, on Shabbat, such an object": As you haven't given examples of any yet, the "such an object" possibly isn't the right choice. Maybe "certain/most/many/all objects" would be better (although I have no idea what can and cannot be carried)
• It may be worth linking "rabbinic" or "rabbinic supervision" to Rabbi#Functions, just for clarity
• You mention religious books to be carried or baby strollers to be pushed twice in successive paragraphs. It may be worth reworking this a little to give these examples once and maybe a couple of other things.
• "objects whose use is forbidden on Shabbat": maybe a footnote to either give examples or classes of examples of what's not allowed. Most will have no idea about much of the background and detail of this

Construction

• "it did so before an overflow crowd". This may be an Engvar thing, but an overflow crowd to me reads like the they only spoke to those who couldn't fit into the main venue, rather than an "overflowing crowd", which reads like a full venue and overflow.

I think it's an ENGVAR thing. "overflow" is common in this regard.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement

• "Residents cited Lakewood in Ocean County as a cautionary tale": Again a brief line or footnote to provide a frame of reference on what happened in Lakewood may be beneficial

Very small points, and the rest is a gem to read. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I've addressed these points, other than the map, which I will have to look at requesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)