Talk:Sussex County, New Jersey

New Jersey C‑class High‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: U.S. counties C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. counties.

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

William Poole is a notable Sussex County native

William Poole was a leader of the American Republican Party. He was a well known political figure of his time. Thousands attended his funeral procession. Graham Wellington (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He lived in Sussex until he was 11. The connection between his notability and Sussex County is not adequate for inclusion on a list of county notables. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

I have assessed this article as C-class and identified the following areas for improvement:

The article needs inline citations

shirulashem (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision - June 2012

I started revising this article on 19 June. I would like to reorganize it into the following sections:

(1) Geology and Geography -- with sections on the physiographic provinces, the mountains, the watersheds, physical and political geography.
(2) History - a brief overview (this section has too much non-essential information) focusing on: (1) this area's prominence in dairy and grain farming, (2) the 18th-19th century iron mining and forge industry, (3) the 19th-20th century zinc mining industry, (4) settlement, colonial and early slavery (5) war participation (French and Indian, Revolutionary, Civil, WWI/WWII) (6) Camp Nordland rallies and the Kloprott trial, (7) the decline of the milk/dairy industry in the 1960s and the rise of bedroom communities since.
(3) Government and Politics - bare minimum, politics is aggrandizing so I'd like to avoid free advertisizing for the pols, and I would like to just mention who is in key offices, and the framework of the government.
(4) Economy -- existing sections cleaned up with sections on current agriculture (dairy, livestock, nursery/horticulture, horses, the 5 or 6 wineries, vegetable and fruit, etc.) and agri-tourism with cites to the USDA production statistics, the role of the bedroom community.
(5) Education -- Current schools, past closed important ones (Upsala College's wirth campus, Don Bosco)
(6) Section on demographics - religion figures, per capita income figures, households, average family size, labor force, etc.
(7) Recreation and Tourism
(8) References (9) Links, etc.

I would project that this article should have somewhere between 65-90 footnotes. Over the next few weeks, it is imperative to cite sources and backup claims.

The notable people's list, I'd like to move into a separate article.

Suggestions?/Comments?/Ideas? ColonelHenry (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Practically the entire sections on "paleo-indians" and "european settlement" that were written before my beginning this revision are utter nonsense. I am removing them almost in their entirety.ColonelHenry (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating this article. I suspect that the "notable people" will migrate back to the main page if you move it, because it seems to be one of the favorite edits for casual contributors : sports figures and entertainers mostly, and of course occasional vandals adding their own names or nicknames. Everything else that you've edited looks good! —Jim Irwin (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. I see the notable people list like lists of alumni on a college article. Sure it's nice to point out the nobel laureates, fields medal winners; but it ends up becoming a me-too list or a list of insignificant athletes and pop stars. If you see anything I miss or see something to tinker with or add, feel free let me know. Citations coming. ;-)ColonelHenry (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic location template

In going along with this revision, I am not entirely thrilled about the geographic location template in the adjacent counties subsection. It's a rather awkward template. I don't think it really enlightens anyone...it doesn't serve its purpose. I think a basic map would accomplish this task better, and that the current text list is sufficient. I don't see anything on the wikiprojects or guidelines that would mandate its inclusion. Sure this template is on thousands of pages, but I'm not convinced that it's useful here or anywhere else. It is my intention to remove this template for these reasons--but I'll hold off for a few days to hear from other editors whether they would support or object to removing this template. Thanks in advance.ColonelHenry (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to keep the template, and get rid of the list above it, which just repeats the same information. To my eye, the template looks slightly more compact than the list in terms of vertical space, but it is a close tie. I'm neutral on the format, but do agree that one of them needs to go. — Jim Irwin (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]