Talk:Mount Tabor, New Jersey

External links modified (February 2018)
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 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Poorly written and sourced
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)