Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey

Former good article nomineeBergen County, New Jersey was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 1, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambot (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 July 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Bad formatting

Can someone with better wiki knowledge please fix the horrible formatting of the section breaks? There's presently a bunch of edit links in a row, each corresponding to a different section of the document. It's screaming for help. :) Shigpit 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Alansohn. The chapter headers don't have individual edit buttons in serial with their separator bars. I scroll down the page, and there are four [edit] links next to each other -- it seems this is occurring because of the way the pictures were placed. I'm using Firefox 1.5 if that helps you understand what I'm looking at. Shigpit 11:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a complete novice and could not figure out how to fix a bad link I found on this page: (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Bergen_County,_New_Jersey)

The shorcut that is supposed to link to the Bergen County Map from 1918 is trying to find the non-existent 1819 map (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/BERGEN_COUNTY/BergenCounty_1819.jpg). A simple transposition, but I can't find the link nor the surrounding text at "edit this article at Wikipedia.org".

To the next skilled person that reads this: could you change the link behind "1918" under the "Historic maps of Bergen County, courtesy Rutgers Collection" heading to "http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/BERGEN_COUNTY/BergenCounty_1918.jpg". This shortcut DOES go to the correct page.

John Freund Ridgefield Park, NJ organguy@biggerthanabreadbox.com

John, thanks for the note. reference.com contains an outdated snapshot of Wikipedia articles. The link to Rutgers no longer exists in the current version of the article. Instead, the map was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons since it is in the public domain (published before 1923, therefore copyright expired). For the image, see here: File:BergenCounty 1918.jpg. For the most-up-to-date version of Wikipedia articles, be sure to use the real page at http://en.wikipedia.org/ . Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

founding of Bergen County?

The article says the founding date of the county is 1675. The county seal shows 1683. Which is correct? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had never noticed the discrepancy, but I've seen both dates. An article describes the scenario that "In 1675 Bergen was included in a judicial district with Essex, Monmouth, and Middlesex counties. Later in 1683, Bergen was recognized as a county by the Provincial Assembly". I guess that would make the 1683 date the most reliable as the date of formation. I will change accordingly. Alansohn 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Law section

A wiki should be filled with facts, not opinions or subjective statements. In the Blue Laws section of the Bergen Co wiki, Alansohn of Teaneck insists on keeping this text intact:

"It has produced the ironic situation that one of the largest and most popular commercial shopping cores of the New York metropolitan area is almost completely closed on Sunday (grocery stores are allowed to operate). Furthermore, Bergen County has significant Jewish and Muslim populations whose observant members would not be celebrating their Sabbath on Sunday with most of their Christian neighbors. The substantial Orthodox Jewish minority is placed in the position of being unable to shop either on Sunday (due to the blue laws) or on Saturday (due to religious observance)."

It is not necessary to include this text. The "blue laws" link provides all the essential information, including the fact this day "coincides with the Christian Sabbath". In fact, I believe this is more of an objective than a factual statement. In addition, it is not completely accurate. I have not seen a "substantial" jewish orthodox nor muslim population in Bergen Co.

  • The information that I insist on keeping is specifically relevant to Bergen County. Blue Laws provide a mix of benefits and burdens. For those who don't observe any religiously-derived day of rest, the benefit of a day off from shopping may very well exceed the loss of a day of shopiing for most such people. For those who do a keep a day of rest on Sunday (mostly Christians) there would seem to be no burdens imposed whatsoever. For those who keep a day of rest on a day other than Sunday -- mostly Muslims (Friday), Orthodox Jews and adherents of certain Christian demoninations (Saturday) -- the enforcement of a "secular" day of rest on Sunday means that there are two days each week when they are forbidden to engage in commerce, a substatntial burden on adherents of those faiths. I am unsure of your familiarity with either Bergen County or Wikipedia; the fact that your only two edits were an unexplained removal of text from the Bergen County article and your post here on this talk page does not provide any context for your background or participation, so let me provide some information. Teaneck (my hometown, as you feel the need to point out) has an Orthodox Jewish population of approximately 4-5,000. Englewood and Fair Lawn also have Orthodox populations of a few thousand each. Fort Lee, Bergenfield, New Milford and Paramus are among communities with Orthodox communities of several hundred to a few thousand individuals. Teaneck is home to two mosques and others are in Englewood and elsewhere around the county. Teaneck has one of a number of Seventh Day Adventist churches, whose adherents observe their Sabbath on Saturday. You can pick your definition for "substantial" -- "fairly large", "having a firm basis in reality and being therefore important, meaningful, or considerable" or "having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary" -- any of which would indicate that there truly are "substantial" numbers of individuals in Bergen County who not only observe their own day of rest, but are also burdened with being forced to observe another day of rest on Sunday, whose "secular" purpose is firmly rooted in historical efforts to enforce the Christian Sunday day of rest. As such, I believe that there is ample justification to keep this objective information in the Bergen County article. If you haven't seen any of members of Bergen County's Orthodox Jewish community, join me for a lunch of pastrami on rye at Noah's Ark on Cedar Lane in Teaneck, which has about a dozen kosher dining establishments alone, and I'll point out a few. Alansohn 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


>I've lived in Bergen Co. for 40+ years. In the past I have resided in Teaneck and Fort Lee; currently in Hillsdale. I am well aware of the demographics of the communities you mention and probably every other in Bergen. I don't profess to be a scholar of Bergen, but I do know what goes on in the county. I am an engineer and have developed products for internetworking and the Internet since the early 80's so I am very familiar with various web technologies. I have only two edits (3 now) because I usually don't rely on wiki's for my information. They tend to provide false or inaccurate data. I just read an article that claimed the entropy of wiki's will reach a level at which point they will contain zero information (entropy by definition). I found it humorous - and now true. I happened to use this wiki for a quick lookup for some Bergen freeholder names. I saw the blue law section and changed it due to inaccurate statements. I do acknowledge there is an Orthodox Jewish community, as well as a growing Muslim community in Bergen Co. I have Orthodox Jew friends. However, I wouldn't say their numbers are substantial, unless you're located in an area where there is a concentration. For example, a person of Croatian descent may think there is a substantial Croatian population if they live in the area of South Eastern Fort Lee, Palisades Park, and parts of Cliffside/Fairview. However, this isn't true for most of Bergen. Typically substantial indicates a significant amount in numbers, relative to the whole. Therefore, I believe the blue laws section is inaccurate in it's "substantial" statement. Plus, adding the fact that it's an inconvenience to some people is more commentary and subjective in nature than a general purpose fact. Something I thought was inappropriate for a wiki (once again, increasing entropy means decreasing factual information). It's a blue law, no further commentary is needed. Mostly everyone knows what that is (if not, follow the link). Pastrami on rye sounds good. As a kid I recall shopping on Cedar Lane, going to deli's, Bischoff's, and Butterflake. Haven't been there in quite some time.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmrsubmit (talk • contribs) 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article candidacy

I haven,t really read the article in a while, but it looks good to me. I'd love to get feedback on additional improvements that could be made. Furthermore, Bergen County has a thoroughly updated set of articles for the 70 municipalities, almost all of the 70+ school districts, and the overwhelming majority of high schools. Alansohn 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, even if it doesn't pass, I still think this will be a valuable exercise for the feedback we get. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed

Further to the WP:GA nomination, this article does not pass WP:WIAGA criteria 1. b), c) 2. a) & 4. b).

Referencing is the most outstanding issue; "The substantial Orthodox Jewish minority is placed in the position of being unable to shop either on Sunday (due to the blue laws) or on Saturday (due to religious observance)" and other such comments, are designated as needing referencing and either should be or reworded.

There are other minor formatting issues; the History section contains multiple dates, facts and figures which need sources, and the Points of interest section would benefit from being a little less linked and converted from a long list, into either a table or normal prose. Per WP:LEAD, the opening section at one paragraph is too short also.

Consider expanding parts of the History section, especially more of the early history of Bergen County - Who were its first settlers (were they European/Native-American)? Why was it named Bergen County? Also this section in its current form reads like a list of facts, and would benefit from some referencing and collaboration from the editing community who take an interest in this article.

I should add this article is actually not far from GA status and is otherwise excellent (pictures, context, writing style etc). For high quality feedback to take this article forward however, visit Wikipedia:Peer review and follow instructions. Hope that helps, best of luck. Jhamez84 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the feedback, we will work on this. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks for the pointers, as well. I have already addressed the first comment re Blue Laws, copyediting the text and providing additional sources for the causes and effects of Bergen County's blue laws and their effects on portions of the population. Let's discuss possible enhancements to teh other sections addressed regarding achieving GA status. Alansohn 15:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Though this discussion took place in Dec 2006 when article failed GA candidate, I'd like to mention a few things that would perhaps improve the article: 1. Placement of municpalities would seem to be better earlier in article. 2. History section could come later in article, namely after the basic information sections such as geography, municipalities, demographics, etc and start somewhere before the Brtish era, ie the Lenape/New Netherland period. 3. Cultural/entertainment section seems a bit thin and inconclusive. Performing arts seems underpresented for a county where music, theatre, and dance play an important roles to the cultural life of many of it's citizens 4. Images are almost exclusively of historical maps, which are interesting to many (me, included), but do not include others that would give a better visual picture of the county: how about pictures of the Hackensack, the GWB, or one of the many shopping malls (which are discussed at length)? 5. An explanation of the topography and the diversity of the landscape, and how it has influenced the development of the county with its more city-like east, Meadowlands towns, posh northern suburbs, the urban sprawl, etc would create a more interesting picture of the place

I would add that I won't make these changes, as I feel BC article can (perhaps) be better written by somewhere who lives in the county, and writing and style don't seem to be the issues. (I have been working on Hudson article later, and would appreciate feedback on that)Djflem 10:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County name origins?

It seems that Bergen County was named for the community of Bergen in what is now Hudson County. But where did that name come from? List of New Jersey county name etymologies (citing [1]) suggests either Bergen-op-Zoom, the Netherlands or Bergen, Norway. However, there are two other locations in the Netherlands with the name Bergen: Bergen, North Holland and Bergen (Limburg). Do we know where the name really comes from? Alan, does the Westervelt book provide any insight? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I'll add this one to my list. I have a another interesting book, "The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries: 1606-1968", John P. Snyder, Bureau of Geology and Topography; Trenton, New Jersey; 1969, which goes through the creation of all counties and municipalities in the state. It has nothing on the sources of names, but it is a most useful source. Alansohn 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of Bergen County comes from one of the earliest settlers of Nieuw Amsterdam (New York City), Hans Hansen Bergen, who arrived in New York from Bergen, Norway. The Bergen Family, Teunis G. Bergen, 1876 MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marmaduke, can you clarify which page says this? I don't see it. The closest thing I found was here: [2] (pages 202-203) which says:
The [Bergen] family was established in this country by Hans Hansen [Bergen] about 1660. He owned much of the territory in New Jersey adjacent to the Hudson river, now Bergen county, "Bergen Point," the name being perpetuated also in Bergen Heights of Brooklyn. The family came originally from Bergen, Norway, but to this country from Holland. They were influential in the early history of New Amsterdam.
I think this means that both Bergen Point (southern tip of Bayonne) and Bergen County are named for him, but the wording seems ambiguous. It would also suggest that Bergen Township, Bergen County, New Jersey (Historical 1683) is named for him. But why is this only mentioned in this one source? Also, Djflem (t c) raises some good points at Talk:Bergen Township, Bergen County, New Jersey (Historical 1683). I think we will have to re-work the current text to acknowledge that there is a debate to the name origin. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, [3] (pages 70-71, footnote) shows several possible sources of the name, and does not include Hans Hansen Bergen among them. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Teunis Bergen volume gives a largely accurate account of the Bergen family, who had many descendants through intermarriage with other prominent early New York-New Jersey families, like the Hoaglands (originally Hoogland), Bogarts (that of Humphrey), etc.[4] I don't speak Dutch, but the results I get from a English-to-Dutch online dictionary is that the Dutch word for 'mountain' is 'berg.' The Bergen family of Mercer County, N.J., are direct descendants of Hans Hansen Bergen.[5] As I understand it (and this is family history) the name of Bergen County, N.J., also derives from Hans Hansen. I believe I have some books in my library which will confirm this, and barring that, I'll search for it on google books. Regards to all of you. This is an interesting discussion.MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These folks most assuredly have the answer.Holland Society of New York MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This source points to what I believe is correct: that Bergen County is named for Hans Hansen Bergen.[6] Nevertheless, I will look for more confirmation as well.MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there are certainly more sources than one which point to the derivation of the Bergen County name being Hans Hansen Bergen.MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an entry for Jacques Cortelyou, the surveyor who laid out the first town of Bergen, as well as investing in it. Hopefully this will help us narrow the search for the origin of the name Bergen.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added that new source to the article, thanks. Also, regarding timelines.. the foundation of the Bergen settlement has been given as 1660 or 1661. The arrival of Hans Hansen Bergen to New Amsterdam was given as 1663. So unless it was named for him afterwards, the timeline doesn't match up. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. As for Hans Hansen Bergen, he arrived in New Amsterdam in 1633, many years before the founding of Bergen.[7] Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, this mystery about the naming of Bergen may never be fully solved, given that Cortelyou's original plan and the list of patentees is lost. The folks who probably who have the answer (if anyone does) are probably the Holland Society. I will endeavor to have the question put to someone there, although it may take awhile. Thanks for your help with this interesting topic.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my mistake. Let us know what you find. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Have you had a chance to have a look at the book "The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony that Shaped America," by Russell Shorto? Shorto writes for the NYTimes Sunday magazine, and although the book won't clear up any mysteries about Bergen, it sure is a good read and I think you'd enjoy it.MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't seen it. I'll put it on my list, thanks. BTW, the topic of the name origin was being discussed at the Bergen County Historical Society web forum, and Hans Hansen was not mentioned until I introduced his name. So far no conclusions. See here: [8]. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll enjoy the book. Shorto is a masterful writer. In it, he mentions that Joris Jansen Rapalje's oldest daughter married the overseer of a tobacco plantation on land that is today's Greenwich Village. (This was Hans Hansen Bergen.) But there is little in Shorto's book to clear up the mystery about Bergen County. But if you enjoy a ripping read and early New Amsterdam history, this is the book for you. Thanks also for posting about the forum. The mystery deepens..... Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Joris Jansen Rapalje, whose daughter Sarah married Bergen, was one of the so-called Twelve Men who represented Manhattan, Breukelen and Pavonia (first settlement in New Jersey), who were elected to come up with a fitting punishment for the Native Americans who had been accused of a murder. Rapalje would later go on to serve as one of magistrates of Brooklyn.[9]MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail lines

The article currently has limited mention of the rail lines in the county. Based on looking at the rail map at File:New Jersey railroad map.png from SPUI (t c) (see legend here: User:SPUI/NJ railroad map), I came up with the following list of rail lines in the county.

Can anyone confirm if this list is correct and complete? I don't have info on whether some of these lines are currently operational or even who they belong to now. Please correct the above as necessary. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following to be accurate:

New Jersey Transit Rail Operations

non-revenue tracks:

CSX Transportation
Norfolk Southern Railway
  • Carlton Hill Spur - out of service but not abandoned, from Rutherford Junction to east of the Passaic River: Erie (E1)
Short lines

S1E, S1G, and parts of E1 and S1H are abandoned.

I did not include minor spurs except where they were once main lines. Your only error was with E1; the former Erie has been abandoned through Passaic in favor of the DL&W. --NE2 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for your assistance. I will write up some prose for review before adding it to the article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

moved discussion from User talk:ChrisRuvolo#Bergen County. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"State parks: replace image; flows better and is more illustrative" -- Seriously, bro? LOL!!! Why don't you just say that you like that picture better?

(Personally, I don't know why, it seems darker and gloomier than the other one, which actually shows more crisp detail, is brighter, and looking southward, hints at a silhouette of the Manhattan skyline - but to each his own, I guess.) 96.242.217.91 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more illustrative of the palisades itself, the item of discussion. It better displays the cliffs in thumbnail form, IMO. Yes, this is opinion. If there is a disagreement, we can talk to build consensus on the talk page. As for flowing better, I was referring to the landscape aspect ratio and size of the image in relation to the other surrounding images. Again, this is my opinion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to bring up another point - I notice that another editor had recently posted an image of Koreatown in Palisades Park, and you nixed it calling it an empty street. I had posted the same thing perhaps a year ago, and you did the same thing, stating the same reason. First of all, that is simply not true about being an empty street - click the picture just once, and you can immediately count about seven or eight Korean businesses. Second of all, the caption I believe was referenced. Third, it may not be as dense as the Manhattan Chinatown, or maybe the picture was taken at mid-morning beween rush hour and lunch hour on a weekday when fewer people are out, or maybe the picture was just captured at the unfortunate second when people and cars were out of view - but none of these things matter, nor do they belie the legitimacy of the Koreatown's existence. I also believe that the image should go up, and to be honest, I find your viewpoint offensive on this particular point.

96.242.217.91 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary subject of the photo appears to be the street and sky. It is not for lack of cars that I object, it is the lack of the ability to tell that it is Korean businesses when in thumbnail form (even at 300 or 350px). Even when looking at the image page, it is hard to tell since all of the signs are at oblique angles. I would welcome a better image clearly showing that the signs are using hangul. Compare for example File:Day124ckoreatown.JPG and File:Koreatown manhattan 2009.JPG. Please assume good faith and do not ascribe objectionable reasons for the image's removal without talking to me first. The removal of the image does not indicate that the existence of Koreatown is somehow illegitimate, merely that it is not illustrative. As for the references, two of the three are in the article already. If the "serious eats" reference is important, it should be added to the main text. BTW, lets take this to the article talk page for any further discussion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the Koreatown image is valid and self-explanatory and belongs in the article.-173.220.112.82 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a Koreatown image in the article, but this one doesn't make the cut in my opinion. Lets take this to the article talk page for any further discussion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well that it's not the MOST illustrative image, and that it could definitely be improved upon. However, not all pictures on Wikipedia are ideally illustrative. You do the best with what you're dealt with at the moment, and the hangul signs to me are apparent if not obvious with a single click. So for the time being, until a better picture is taken by someone, I believe this image (with a suitably referenced caption) adds some decent value that is more useful and informative than having nothing at all. I believe we need some compromise with regards to the images - you want both the Palisades image and this issue to fit in accord with your opinions above others' reasonable viewpoints, and in my humble opinion, that is not correct. So perhaps we can include the Koreatown image but leave the Palisades image that you like better, if you're amenable to that.

96.242.217.91 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can do that. It probably won't stand up to a good article review, but it might be a useful placeholder. I labeled it indicating that users should click on it to see the Korean signs. I hope this doesn't cause undue weight. We might want to seek out similar photos for other ethnic groups already mentioned in the demographics section. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, sounds like a plan. I'm just not aware of any other such (commercial) ethnic enclaves in the County - I've been looking for a Little Italy here - are you aware of such a commercial district in the South County?

96.242.217.91 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not aware of any Italian-focused commercial districts. The Mitsuwa market in Edgewater could be considered a Japanese district, but that might be a stretch considering that it consists of a strip mall, supermaket and food court. I think photos of individual businesses with non-english signs (of any of the mentioned groups) might be easier to find. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will definitely look around - although I think that in this particular county, there might be no other bona fide commercial ethnic enclaves - The significant Korean presence tends to be a hallmark of Bergen County.

96.242.217.91 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For criterion 1B: The lead should be about twice as long per WP:LEADLENGTH. Here are some specific problems:
    • "The 1709 borders were described as follows". Described by whom?
    • "George Washington knew that the next morning British forces would seize New Bridge Landing, which is only 2 miles north of his headquarters in Hackensack". Tense shift.
    • "and an architecturally notable Sikh gurudwara resides in Glen Rock". Who is he?
  • For criterion 2A: Mostly good, but the sources section seems redundant: the refs there are not used at all, or they are in the references section. Ref 177 should have a better title than "7".
  • For criterion 2B: Many paragraphs in "Geography" are unreferenced. The last three paragraphs of "County government" have no sources at all. "Points of interest" is mostly unreferenced. A paragraph in "Transportation" is unreferenced.
  • For criterion 3B: I think the "Community diversity" section should be consolidated and/or split into a new article. It is far too long as is.
  • For criterion 6B: A few too many images in the "Points of interest" section, maybe. A picture of one of the colleges/universities would be good in the education section.
  • This review is on hold for 7 days.
    • The review has now been failed.

Checklist

  • Well-written
    • The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    • It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  • Verifiable with no original research
    • It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    • It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    • It contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage
    • It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
    • It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images.
    • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
    • Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Overall.

Thank you for nominating, --Jakob (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@King jakob c 2: I suggest a decline of this GA, as this article is clearly not GA quality. Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've failed it. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything in the review. I might've left it open for another day or two, but the nominator doesn't seem to be active. --Jakob (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I realized even soon after submitting it for GA review that it would likely not qualify - the reason being that these county articles few and far between ever reach GA status. I believe it's an inherent part of their make-up and not a bad reflection on this article per se, which I feel is generally a high-quality article that informs the reader with useful and overall well-cited content. Castncoot (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BergenPac

Would someone closer please expand Bergen Performing Arts Center before it is up for removal?--Wikipietime (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problem

I made this edit to the article in an effort to correct the formatting issue found in the "municipalities" section, where an editor has stacked images, thereby pushing the chart way down the page. It's a visual nightmare which I thought I had fixed, until another editor reverted it, stating in their edit summary "revert to longstanding stable version; the old formatting has never been expressed as an apparent problem for (many) years. For such a drastic change after so many years, please take it Talk. Also, you may want to check your browser". The input of other editors would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that issue with my browser. The pictures have always been stacked (forever) and have not been upset by the insertion of the new chart. More importantly, the images relate to particular sections. Looks standard to me. Castncoot (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the article as it stands on my cellphone or on any of three different browsers checked on a variety of devices. Never assume that the rest of the world sees all things the way you see it on your screen. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problem in my computer browser, on a standard width, that the images stack at the beginning of the Municipalities section and block the following table and leave a lot of white space. When I have it large and very wide the images run down the right hand side of the table. On my mobile phone and tablet the screen is too narrow to show this problem since everything is displayed in a long column anyway. What do you see? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus for or against stacking. AlbinoFerret 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the photos be stacked at Bergen County, New Jersey#Municipalities? It appears to add excessive whitespace. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see? Do the images stack above the Municipalities table in your browser? Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The pertinent MOS here is WP:LAYIM, WP:IMGLOC, WP:IG. IMHO, it appears that the images on the right hand side create a large amount of white space between the paragraph, and the table. This can be remedied using a two column solution allowing the table to float to the right, and the paragraph with the images being on the left. Please see Help:Columns.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, the "stacking" is fine. I have to reduce browser window width to about 1/3 of my monitor width to get the effect you're talking about, and it would happen no matter what, any time images appear before any table, because the table can't be interrupted by images. And we wouldn't want one to be. It's not even clear what you think the alternative might be. The only way this could reasonably look better is the introduction of more [sourced, relevant] prose paragraph material about municipalities, before the table, for the images to flow around. The images do seem to belong in this section, and we need more of them. If we had a bunch of them, a gallery below the table might be in order, but a gallery or 2 pictures seems more visually pointless than some people getting some whitespace because their window width is tiny. Even then, if you keep reducing window width you'll eventually get images on top of one another without flowing around other content. It's just a fact of "e-physics", as it were.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not even clear what you think the alternative might be." It would be this. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bergen County, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bergen County, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Bergen County, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Bergen County Police Department into Bergen County, New Jersey

Bergen County Police Department consists of a single paragraph, and seems to only be notable for having been merged into the sheriff's department. It would make more sense to include that information in the section on county government, or perhaps a new section on law enforcement. Apocheir (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While not sufficiently covered here, the merger was a topic that received significant local media coverage and shows significant notability of the police department as an independent topic. oknazevad (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Talk:Bergen County Police Department § Merging Discussion, you said the BCPD was notable during its existence. However, the only citations on the page pertain to the merger. Can you provide sources for whatever it was notable for before the merger? -Apocheir (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The police department is not notable enough to warrant an independent article. Information about the merger can be included in this article. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 01:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the page is a stub. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest European Settlement

The history section describes the failed attempts by the Dutch to settle what is now Jersey City in the 1630s, then goes on to say that Bergen Township (founded c.1660) was the first permanent European settlement. The referenced article is equally misleading but solely focused on Jersey City (not Bergen). That reference would be correct if it did not use the word "permanent" because the 1630 settlements failed. Even so, the 1660 date might be true for East Jersey but not for West Jersey. The modern state of NJ includes New Sweden, on the Delaware River, the settlements of which were never abandoned. For instance, Swedesboro, established by 1649, may in fact be the earliest permanent (i.e., never abandoned) European settlement in what is now New Jersey. So that sentence in the article needs to be changed. I just wanted to mention that here before changing it. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the 1660 settlement is in present-day Jersey City. That's still not the earliest European settlement in NJ today. It's also in Hudson County, so needs some clarification there. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bergen_County,_New_Jersey