Talk:Teaneck, New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Teaneck, New Jersey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

[edit] GA Review

This article is very well written and well referenced. However, I don't think that it meets the good article criteria at this time, primarily on account of Criterion 3 (not broad in its coverage). The lead section does not really adequately summarize the article; it goes over some rather trivial bits of information on the city's founding, and doesn't really cover anything about what the article will later talk about.

There's also nothing in the article about the local culture, or cultural attractions in the city. I would recommend adding a section about 'arts and culture', and talk about some of this information. Probably add a few photos.

Why is the 'crime' section under 'government'? It might make more sense to include this as a subsection under 'demographics' instead? I'm also not sure about the notability of the taxation section? While it's reasonably well-cited, it seems a bit long, and probably isn't all that important to describe such mundane details in an encyclopedia article. Sure, if the city has the highest median tax rates in the US, and a high level of income, that's notable. But details on the exact level of property taxes, and significant budget details, probably aren't all that important.

I'd recommend promoting the history section to just after the lead. Most city articles seem to have the order of sections starting with: History, Geography & Climate, Demographics, then Economy,... (after that, there's a lot of variability). There's also really nothing in the article about the local climate; suggest incorporating a 'climate' subsection within geography. Also, why are 'major institutions' mentioned under geography -- this statement seems like it belongs more under an economy or education section, or move it to the lead to summarize further discussions.

What's the purpose of 'historic homes' under the history section? It seems like just a listing of some tourist sites. Plus, the links are all red. Instead of the list, incorporate information on why these homes are significant in other parts of the article (history, arts and culture). The street addresses aren't really all that important to the article, either -- remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not a tourist guide.

There's several external links in the education section (links to K-12 schools). As a general rule, there should only be internal wikilinks in the actual article text; external links should only be found under the external links section. The 'external links' section is a bit long; review WP:EL for guidelines regarding what links to include in an article. Links to blogs and discussion boards are generally not acceptable. Links to major institutions, like the university, Holy Name Hospital, etc, are unnecessary because the article should actually include an internal wikilink to the page in the text (an external link to the university's website would then be included on the wikilinked page). The public schools website should actually be used as a reference in the education section -- reference material about the public schools using info published on their website, then the link is under 'references'.

The economy section could be expanded greatly.

I'd recommend moving the 'noted residents' section to a separate article ('List of famous people from Teaneck, New Jersey', for example). Link to it under a 'see also' section. The list is rather long.

Remove the direct quotes from several of the references sources. References should generally contain the author, title, publisher, date of publication, and page number(s) of the publication. Exact quotations of referenced material is unnecessary, and generally not included in reference sections.

Hope this helps. Overall, I'd rate this article as a good, solid B; not quite GA class, but could be rather easily with a bit of work. Dr. Cash 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Issues raised in the above GA review have been addressed and incorporated into the article. Alansohn 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review 2

Well done article. Basing that all of the above concerns have been addressed and I see nothing else wrong, this article is now a GA.Mitchcontribs 21:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another reviewer got to this before I got a chance to re-review it. But I concur with Mitchcontribs's assessment on passing this article. The issues that I raised above have largely been addressed, with the minor exception of the external links in the education section -- this should still be fixed, but I don't think it's worth holding up GA status over,... Good work! Dr. Cash 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map Problem

The map that highlights Teaneck's location within Bergen County doesn't. J S Ayer (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • An editor had set up a bot to replace maps that had been used in almost all articles in New Jersey. The problem was that these maps tended to lose certain townships, such as Teaneck. The editor was asked to stop the map changes, but the problem was never corrected. I will review and restore the previous map. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better! J S Ayer (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    • No problem. There's still a generic problem with New Jersey maps, but this one is addressed for now. Thanks for raising the issue. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)