Talk:Mount Tabor, New Jersey

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Tabor, 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.umcatmounttabor.org/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014024934/http://www.umcmounttabor.org/ to http://www.umcmounttabor.org/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014024934/http://www.umcmounttabor.org/ to http://www.umcmounttabor.org/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009160641/http://www.taborrecord.com/ to http://www.taborrecord.com/

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) 23:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written and sourced[edit]

Large parts of this article are not written in an encyclopedic tone appropriate for Wikipedia. Particularly in the latter sections on the history, with sentences like "A contract was entered into with Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, and this is how we get our water today. Now the water tower in St. John's park functions only as a reminder of our past" and "Many houses and buildings were not maintained as well as they should have been, and rebellious youth made their presence known. Fortunately, this trend has been reversed in the last decades, and an appreciation for the past has become strongly evident" read more like a personal essay and reflection rather than an encyclopedia article.

While the article contains a lot of interesting information, it is poorly sourced and almost entirely lacking any in-line citations, despite the many specific numbers, dates, and facts asserted throughout.

The whole thing is in need of a proper rewrite, but like many of the more obscure articles on Wikipedia, pages like this tend to go largely unnoticed and ignored ("low-importance" as they say), so it may be years, if ever, that an article like this receives editorial attention.

I don't know how to tag articles for problems, and would have just done that instead (and there are countless others that really should be as well but won't because someone decided they are low-importance). So oh well, hopefully someone competent sees this and takes on the challenge. And Wikipedia should really allow tagging to be done in a simple manner, if they care about quality at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.200.134 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]