Talk:Toms River/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 18:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a solid article expansion, and its definitely improved from what it was earlier in the year. I don't think it's GA yet.

The lead is incredibly short. Some of the history should be included to summarize the article's contents.

A WP:GEOCOMMA is needed after New Jersey in the lead. There are other comma issues throughout the article, like an inappropriate comma in A 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the lack of one in On August 28 2011,

Some items in the infobox, such as the river's width, are not included in the text of the article.

There are unsourced sentences in the "Geography" section, like that it is a tidal river and that it has 11 municipalities, which are ID'd in the infobox but not the body.

A yellow tag has been placed in the "History" section pointing out the inappropriate usage of external links.

"Who is Tom?" is not an encyclopedic section header. Something like "Namesake" would be better.

"Superfund" - what is this referring to? The page Superfund is informative, but is not linked from this page, nor is the term explained in the article.

There are unsourced paragraphs in "Reich Farm" and "Cancer cluster".

The "site cleanup table" requires scoped rows and tables (see MOS:DTAB for more), and the date format needs to be fixed per MOS:DATEFORMAT.

The "tributaries" are presented in list format and should have prose.

That's my first pass on this article. I'll put it on hold for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A week has passed. The nominator of this article hasn't been active on Wikipedia, and nobody else has responded to this, so I will now close this nomination as failed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)