Talk:Teaneck, New Jersey

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)

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.Mitch^contribs 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 Mitch^contribs'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)

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)

Possible Misinformation

This article indicates that the book, "Foreskin's Lament," by Shalom Auslander is about Teaneck. Isn't it, rather, mostly about Monsey NY, which is a VERY different community? APace361 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

GA Reassessment

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

I'll be reassessing this article's Good Article status as part of the GA sweep. This is an effort to make sure that all older GA's are up to snuff. Mm40 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is sufficient. Mm40 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Readthrough

Lead

• In the lead sentence, the second "is" is redundant. Also, after taking that "is" out, in the comma needed?
• Not needed, but if you're really bored, you can go through and unlink all the dates. Also, particularly in the lead, some dates are linked while others are not. Make this consistent. (again not needed)
• "…followed the results of a…" is that "results" or "result"?
• "On May 3, 1921 and on June 1, 1926…" the second "on" is redundant.
• The first sentence of the fourth paragraph is a bit messed up.
• The second sentence of the third paragraph is a bit long, and "site" is used twice in the second half of the sentence.
• In the last sentence of the lead, Jew and African American are linked, but Hispanic and Asian aren't. I would unlink the first two.
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

History

• Link Oratam and Overpeck Creek (which is linked in the next section).
• Clarify, did Oratam lead all Lenape's or only the Lenape's in the area?
• Why did the troubles stop persisting in 1655?
• George Washington is linked in the lead, it doesn't need to be linked in "The Revolutionary War period".
• "…Washington's famous withdrawal…" famous is definitely WP:WEASEL
• New Bridge Landing is linked both in the lead and "The Revolutionary War period"
• Remove "The" from section headings
• Does "…,and Teaneck was right in the middle of it" really need to be there?
• "…were aroused at mid-century…" the middle of which century?
• For the last sentence of "The Revolutionary War period", how about this: "They traveled daily to New York City, thus becoming Teaneck's first suburban commuters." The current version seems a bit wordy.
• "…central part being a tract crisscrossed by roads…" I think "tract" is a bit ambiguous/redundant.
• "…put through the New Jersey General Assembly on February 18, 1895 and in the…" take out "in"
• Some instances of "African American" are hyphenated while others aren't; make this consistent.
• "…in the Northeast corner…" Lowercase "Northeast".
• "…near the Bryant School…" take out "the".
• Too many "and"s in the "Historic homes" section.
• Link all of the "Historic homes"; even if they don't have articles, NRHP places are notable and the articles will be created eventually. Mm40 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Geography

• No where in the article is in mentioned where Teaneck is (north, south).
• "…of which, 6.05 square miles (15.67 km2) of it is land and 0.20 square miles (0.52 km2) of it (3.20%) is water." I think both "of it"s can be taken out. I'll leave it up to you where to put the water percentage.
• Directions shouldn't be capitalized unless they are part of place names (i. e. West Orange is west of Orange).
• "municipally owned" should be hyphenated.
• "…such as Chicago…" can be removed, I think people will understand what inland means.
• New York City is linked twice in the "Climate" paragraph. Mm40 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

• Why's a picture of the post office in this section? I would suggest moving it.
• The number of households in mentioned twice.
• "…and an additional 4.3% listed United States of America." I think that's "listed American". Mm40 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Post office image was moved; The number of households is listed tqice to show how the number breaks down and is a standard loaded for population data nationwide. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Economy

• There's no article for "Streetscape project", so you may want to elaborate a bit.
• Link Class A office space. Mm40 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Government

• "From its founding…" I think "Following" would be more accurate than "From", because from might imply that the system is still in use.
• "…the Council was expanded…" "was" is redundant (I think).
• The 37th district link does not go to a section, only the article.
• The last sentence of "Federal, state and county representation" needs an "and".
• "…72% of the vote here…" don't use "here", also in the next sentence.
• Link property tax.
• "…result of long term labor agreements." I think "long term" should be hyphenated.
• The last paragraph of "Taxation" was already mentioned. Mm40 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS

As an MoS nerd, I'm going to go over the article for more obscure MoS aspects (WP:DASH) after this review. Mm40 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the lead can be improved. I'd put the last paragraph, about history, as the second paragraph. Also, what's now the second paragraph can be made longer. Perhaps add an overview of historic/important sites, anything notable about arts and culture, etc. Mm40 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  Much better now, thank you. Mm40 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• "…Washington's famous withdrawal…" famous is definitely WP:WEASEL.
• …into a spectacular Victorian mansion" again, weaseling.
• The second paragraph of "Development after World War II" is full of weasels. Mm40 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All items listed in this section have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Other

After me telling you on your talk page to fix dead links, most are done. There is still one, Teaneck Community Calender, which isn't working. After this is fixed and I check over images, I'll close this review. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No image issues, last things: there is one {{fact}} and a couple of unreferenced paragraphs in the "History" section. As per procedure, I'm giving you seven days to fix these. Mm40 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I've updated the education section statistics to reflect the 2008-09 school year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LenMinNJ (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jersey Shore?

This reference is completely incomprehensible. Teaneck - where I grew up and where I had family for over 50 years - has very little in common with the Jersey Shore, other than the fact that they're in the same state. As indicated, it is a suburban community largely focused on NYC. It is nearly 90 miles from Seaside Heights, which has been the primary locale of the TV show. It differs from the background of the show demographically, culturally, and ethnically. Although Teaneck still has a sizable population of Italian background (though not as much so as nearby communities such as Bergenfield), it has much more significant African-American, Asian, and Modern Orthodox populations than the Jersey Shore. I am pretty sure that the behavior of the characters on the TV show would be ridiculed at Teaneck High School, for example. The inclusion of J.S. makes absolutely no sense to me. (Apace361 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC))

Reference deleted - you could have done the same. -- Y not? 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

Isn't Teaneck a diverse township, similar to Paterson and Fair Lawn, New Jersey? I don't know it that well, but seems like this township deserves a new and detailed Neighborhoods section outlining all the different neighborhoods on its Wikipedia page. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

School integration

The article claims that Teaneck achieved some sort of first by integrating in 1965.....There were voluntarily integrated schools in majority white communities decades before this time. The first that comes to mind is Shelbyville, Indiana, see Bill Garrett (basketball). Garrett graduated from an integrated school in 1947. I don't have a copy of this book on hand, but it contains references to several Indiana schools that were integrated long before 1950, certainly before 1965. Teaneck's claim to be first can only be maintained with plenty of qualifiers, like including "busing". It probably should be struck altogether. Jacona (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Another example is Hoxie, Arkansas Jacona (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The article "50 years later, Teaneck recalls integration of its schools" was published this year celebrating the 50th anniversary of "... when Teaneck became the first community in America to vote to desegregate its schools — in this case, by busing students from all parts of the city to a new, centralized sixth grade." and I could readily provide hundreds of sources that make similar claims. The 1968 book Triumph in a White Suburb: The Dramatic Story of Teaneck, N.J., the First Town in the Nation to Vote for Integrated Schools puts the claim right on the cover. The appropriate action would be to figure out how to best qualify the statement. Was Teaneck the first in the nation? The first to do so voluntarily? The first to use busing as part of a plan? Or (as often appears in the claims) was it the first to vote to do so? There are many situations where two or more entities claim some distinction in conflict with each other and the best way is to address the issue by describing the claim accurately and indicating that there are other claimants. Alansohn (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems wise. I suspect the author of the article and the book both believed their statement to be true, and with proper qualification, it may be. As far as the first vote, the Hoxie school board voted in 1955, while the Teaneck board's vote came in 1965. Some of the Indiana schools were integrated in the 1920s, I haven't read a source that state how that happened, but there was probably a vote somewhere, and it seems unlikely they were forced to do so, so many years before Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. Why don't you take a shot at it? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I will try to go through the sources and consider alternatives. Given your acquaintance with other places that make similar claims, can I also suggest that you may want to take a shot at making the appropriate changes. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia, the article for Desegregation busing may be relevant and the 1965 date may well reflect the legal environment that followed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More fodder for thought. as the busing element was a key component of the plan, it may be worth adding details regarding Teaneck to the Desegregation busing article, once the details are clarified here and in the article for the Teaneck Public Schools. Alansohn (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I may get around to that (busing) in some time, as my plan is to put in a lot of effort on racial segregation in the US. For now, why don't you handle this issue in this article? You have a far greater knowledge of New Jersey and have done so much good work here. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Fatal shooting of Phillip Parrell

My recent edits were reverted on the basis that the earlier version was "more descriptive." Interesting, as the earlier version had left out an important phrase present in the citation, while including some text not present in the cite. Let's see if we can a version acceptable to all. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge

The Fire department article is too big to merge back into the main article. --RAN (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - agree with RAN. The article is detailed, sourced and too lengthy to be merged with Teaneck. Better to keep its own page. Scanlan (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - as per above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge This indepth article is too large to be merged. It is comprehensive in and of itself.Djflem (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Teaneck, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815140430/http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results to http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814131152/http://censtats.census.gov/data/NJ/0603400372360.pdf to http://censtats.census.gov/data/NJ/0603400372360.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207100218/http://bcts.bergen.org/index.php/admissions-home to http://bcts.bergen.org/index.php/admissions-home

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)