Article is now at 47kb. Remove minor details to sub-pages and keep thoroughness while making article concise... see Wikipedia:Summary style.
Identify and fill any holes
Nineteenth Century coverage is thin, especially from 1865 onwards.
I found a time line here, which, for the later Nineteenth Century, focuses on Thomas Edison and his inventions. As of now, since there wasn't much going on in New Jersey at the time, I think we should leave it alone until something can be established about the time period.
See Boroughitis, for my stab at starting the article. In Bergen County alone, 26 municipalities were created in 1894. Today, 56 of Bergen County's 70 municipalities are Boroughs. Alansohn15:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Google results. The results show only 4 websites outside of wikipedia itself, with 3 of those pages from one website. All only discuss boroughitis in Bergen County, not anywhere else in the state.
I think it is fairly significant, it manages a large portion of the area's infrastructure. Whether to create it at all, and then through the years of its expansion of power, there was significant public debate. Also, perhaps the other interstate compacts that New Jersey is involved in should be mentioned. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Address concerns raised by Grenavitar in FAC.
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.
Most of this uncited information was copied from the other relevant articles. So they may have the needed citations. Or if they don't, citations should be added to those articles also as they are found.
As for the space, this has been brought up numerous times, but as recent (and very important) events and having been already cut down a lot, it seems now of adequate size. AndyZ22:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
