Wikipedia:Peer review/Boroughitis/archive1

Boroughitis
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would appreciate comments

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A few comments from Brianboulton
I read this with interest (untopical topics are always oddly soothing) but not, alas, with complete understanding. My lack of familiarity with the municipal structures of American states can't have helped, but at times I was struggling to follow what was going on. Here are some specific points:


 * Lead: I feel that many non-American readers will need a slightly clearer summary in the lead than what is given at present, to enable them to follow the article
 * Do we know who invented the neologism "boroughitis"? As it's the title of the article, its origin ought to be given. I see there is some rancorous, though ancient, discussion of this point on the article's talk.
 * I don't find anything contemporary on this, but there's not a lot online in terms of 1894 New Jersey newspapers. It seems to be the most widely used term.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a source, here that alleges the term was used then. But the source is making so many mistakes about other things (boroughs long predated 1894 in New Jersey, for one thing) that I hesitate to use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Is boroughitis a purely New Jersey phenomenon, or have other states undergone similar developments? It would be interesting to have some comparison of New Jersey's 575 municipalities with those of another state of similar size.
 * I'll see what I can do. I don't think there's ever been a perfect storm like this.  None of the sources mentions a similar situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a couple of pithy comparisons.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From the text, a few  things I found hard to understand:
 * " They were bitterly fought on each by the rural, agricultural population..." – "fought on each" would be clearer as "opposed on each issue"
 * "Many of these [road] districts later became individual municipalities..." – "municipalities" at what level: boroughs, townships, something else?
 * The source says "towns", which I imagine is the generic sense rather than the particular New Jersey variant. Most likely borough is meant. I do not like to assume.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Much of the land, which was generally near stations, was sold off, and was transformed into communities that in the following years would secede from the townships in which they lay, creating some of the "doughnut holes" that mark the New Jersey municipal landscape today." The "doughnut hole" analogy suggests a vacant space; but the communities which seceded were  not vacant spaces, but were entitities that had some continuing existence, so the analogy is confusing, at least to me.
 * It didn't happen much in Bergen County because of the odd circumstances. I've added a map of Monmouth County, where the phenomenon is more visible.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I would columnize the references.

Decidedly offbeat and curious. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think. I've done what I could.  There are not many sources on this that I've been able to find.  As for the international guest, this is a non-basic article on New Jersey municipal history and it has its own particular terminology that caters to those who have taken the basic course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Adam Cuerden
Looks pretty good. Reference 25, with the Harvcheck script on, tells me "Cite error: The named reference wolfe was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." It's nicely illustrated, though File:BergenCounty_1918.jpg is made very difficult to interpret given the red and blue lines drawn over it. - As nice as historic maps can be to articles like this, it's just not very helpful to have much more visible divisions overlaying the ones of interest. On the whole, I'd like to see this promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true. Possibly best to lose that one and move down the political map at the top of the article.  I've fixed that error.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd probably leave it at the top - it's a great introduction to the subject, and it's just strange to have an illustrated article without a lead image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe make an animation of the boroughs splitting up over time. But that's perhaps a bit too advanced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a lot of work. The boroughs were created over thirty years.  Since then, there have been a fair number of boundary changes, land swaps and the like.  It would be hard to do right to get to today.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Though you wouldn't have to - from the state at the start to the end of the period of buroughitis is all that really matters to the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great, if you have the technical ability, as alas I do not. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can get me enough details, I'll make one up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Are the maps in the article (plus the one deleted) enough or do you need more?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect we'll need more snapshots to get a decent animation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of the maps here, including the statewide ones, show the townships.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
What a splendid article! Such strange goings-on. I really have no suggestions for changing the prose, which is an excellent read from start to finish. I had to reread the bit about "the first of the thirteen colonies to have no unincorporated lands" (my italics), but it is perfectly well phrased, and it is only my unfamiliarity with US state governance that tripped me up. I don't see how it could be more clearly put. Once or twice I had the feeling that there were hyphens where there didn't oughter be ("had been little-used", "proved ill-suited to") but I know from experience that hyphens are best left undiscussed except by experts, of whom I am not one.

I must say that "fungible" went off in my face like an exploding cigar. I looked it up in the OED and am still none the wiser. A link or footnote, perhaps? I think some readers would be glad of a link for "balkanize" in the lead, too. And that really is my lot. You'll ping me when going to FAC, I trust. –  Tim riley  talk    20:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do those things, but will also leave the hyphens to others. Many thanks for the review. "Fungible" is a legal term for things that are each like the other, like grain or other commodities. Thus, he is saying (correctly) that the boroughs do run together and there's really nothing but the signs to tell you're in one or another.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment from rueben lys
Very interesting topic, and a bit forlorn (for want of a better word). Point that sticks out to me is that the entire intro seems to have no reference. Pointing the reader (eg, myself) to a source of broad information on the topic is useful, especially since the article itself is wuite interesting.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am glad you enjoyed it. Per WP:LEDE, the first section is a summary of the article that is not sourced so long as the information contained therein is sourced in the rest of the article. Thank you indeed for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)