Talk:Toms River

Toms River was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toms River article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Cancer Cluster

Clearly, this Wikipedia entry has been initiated by people less concerned with educating people about the Toms River than with pushing their anti-CG and cancer-alarmist agenda. -- Schnazola 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tributaries

Do the Union Branch and the other tributaries really need their own webpages? Is there any news about them that wouldn't be covered by this main article? Eliz81 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciba Geigy dye works

I came to this page hoping to find out something about the pollution of the river by Ciba Geigy but there is nothing here. Could a page be made for this? There is a new book out on the subject as a few days ago: http://www.amazon.com/Toms-River-Story-Science-Salvation/dp/055380653X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364172793&sr=1-1&keywords=Toms+River%3A+A+Story+of+Science+and+Salvation. Thank you. Risssa (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risssa added Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

River Pollution

I've seen several studies which indicate that parts of the Toms River, particularly in the Beachwood area, are seriously, seriously polluted. On some of the worse days, Fecal Coliform Bacteria tests have found the river to contain 30 times the amount of the bacteria which is considered safe. Perhaps something about this should be added? It's rather significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.134.130 (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@68.39.134.130 fecal coliform tests are run on just about every Beach area or recreational waterway on the East Coast. It's not uncommon for relatively clean waterways to have high levels, especially after a big storm where there's a lot of runoff. It's a big reason why the shore towns have a major push for people cleaning up after their dogs and disposing of their trash properly. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toms River/GA1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]