Talk:2009 New Jersey gubernatorial election

2009 New Jersey gubernatorial election was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 13, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

New Jersey 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

United States: Governors 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[2009 New Jersey gubernatorial election#Write-in candidates|write-in candidates]] The anchor (#Write-in candidates) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Poll results

I'm always for giving 110% effort, but not when the Quinnipiac University poll results from December 11, 2007 exceed the traditional 100% level. The link to the results also seems dead. Anyone? Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the correct poll numbers. I can't get the link to work though. 67.80.50.152 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

Can somebody mention (with sources) that this is the first election involving the new office of Lieutenant Governor? GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. --Duran (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daggett

Since Daggett has qualified for matching funds and will appear in the debates, this is truly a three-way race. I think certain parts of the article right now fail to distinguish the relatively viability Daggett candidacy from the less viable minor independent candidates. I propose changes are made to emphasize the difference; I've already done this for the New Jersey elections, 2009 article. Does anyone disagree? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby - I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree with what you have done over at NJE2009, the labels "Major" and "Minor" are (widely held) opinion and have no legal meaning. I do agree that Mr. Daggett, by virtue of qualifying for matching funds, probably should be treated differently than the other Independents - in fact I was struggling with how to deal with it when I came across your entry here. I have tried a different but similar approach which I think addresses your concern HerbertMMarx (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Herbert - Okay, I've made some major changes to both articles. I tried to find a sort of middle-ground approach that distinguishes Daggett from the other, less viable independent and third-party candidates while not calling those candidates "minor." I kept the "major" label but added a couple of sentences explaining what made the three candidates "major." Check out the changes and let me know what you think. Also, do you think we should put Daggett beside Corzine and Christie in the infobox? Or alternatively should we wait to see how he does on election day to do that? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Willoughby - I agree that the infobox should have Daggett, I just haven't gotten a chance to do it. I had previously removed the "others mentioned" for Lt. Governor because frankly, that's mostly bs. Other than Pinkett & perhaps Buono & Booker, it's pure speculation and posturing (or in some cases (self-)promotion). I heard or read about no fewer than 20 different Democratic "others" who were being "mentioned", and I'm sure I could find web references for more than that - do we list them all? At least the ones that are there now have the most basis in reality - however thin. Generally, I like the reorg, but I changed the heading because Corzine has not qualified for public funding, nor will he attempt to. More later HerbertMMarx (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Herbert - I added Daggett to the infobox. Do you know where we could get a picture of him? In my year-plus on Wikipedia I'm afraid I've never become acquainted with the procedures or rules for adding pictures to articles. Regarding Lt. Governor, I agree with you, which is why I've tried to kind of forge a compromise by only mentioning three of the other "top contenders" for each candidate (i.e. Buono, Coleman, and Pinkett for Corzine). Jerzeykydd is on the opposite end of the spectrum and prefers the lengthy list of all those who had been mentioned in speculation, and I reverted his/her re-expansion of the section earlier today. I hope the current state of the section is satisfactory to both sides. Thanks for the feedback and valuable edits you've made today -- I appreciate it, and I feel like both articles have improved considerably as a result of the reorganization. And good catch on the Corzine thing -- I didn't realize he isn't seeking public funds. Interesting. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would the image used on Daggett's Facebook and MySpace pages be considered fair use as per {{Non-free promotional}}? —Offenbach (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Offenbach - Thanks for putting the image up, it looks great. It seems to me that this would be considered fair use, but it looks like your rationale is being questioned. Here's hope it'll hold up. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Willoughby - I think your compromise is perfect, and I think our changes and the reorgs have improved this page considerably. BTW, the reason JC is not seeking public financing is that if you do, your spending is capped (at around $15 mil as I recall). PS you were a great TZ episode.
- Herbert - Thanks man, I really do appreciate the help. That's very interesting about the public financing...I knew about the issue on the federal level but I wasn't sure if state elections were dealt with the same way. PS Yeah I know, it's truly a classic and it never gets old for me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offen - It's probably worth a try - give it a shot. I haven't had much luck with pix unless I take them myself. If he has an appearance near me, I'll try and get a picture of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbertMMarx (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was going to say "whoa whoa whoa this reminds me of the 2008 presidential article". Then, I came to the discussion to see he had applied for matching funds and debate participation. That is a key hurdle to clear. I am still a bit ambivalent though. I am all for inclusion and getting viable third party candidates, but I have not heard about him before I saw it here today and I think he needs more media attention before being posted as a minimally viable candidate. Polling helps and he may be included in the next polls, but he still has a lot of name recognition to get. I have never heard of him and am very much into politics. So for now, I think it is acceptable to keep him until we get polling data. We need to set up a standard for what would qualify him under polling data (5%? 10%?). But the matching funds and debate participation are very significant. If he clears 10%, I would definitely support it. If he clears 5%, with the other two things, it should be fine.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

I looked for Daggett in some of the polling links and he is not listed. Where does his polling data come from?--Metallurgist (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some other candidate" or "others" is refering to Daggett or some one of the other independent/third party candidate. However, it's mostly Daggett. Please don't make an issue out of this.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I not make an issue out of it? Metallurgist (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I added the Pollster.com link to External links http://www.pollster.com/polls/nj/09-nj-gov-ge-cvc.php and it starts showing Daggett in July. The list below the chart shows clearly which is 'Daggett' and which is 'other'. Check it against this article and if you find any inconsistencies please post them. Thanks. Flatterworld (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from 2005 article

I was reviewing the 2005 article and two of the links were now about this election instead (they apparently don't keep archives back to 2005). So, I added them (NJ.com and USElections.com). Flatterworld (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python "issue"

Is this really notable enough to merit a paragraph in the "General election" section? I don't think it does – maybe a one-line mention at most – but I'd like to know what others think. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby, I now under the impression that you are not being fair and impartial, but have a pro-Christie bias. When I posted information that was pro-daggett you down played it. When I posted information that was negative toward Christie you removed it.

I come back to this page the day before the election and I see the first citation has been updated to point to an negative Corzine story from August and does not even support the claim being made. And there is also a claim that Christie has led Corzine in almost all of the polls which is untrue.

But here we have not only a lawyer, but a US Attorney General that has time and again acted immorally and unethical, and this is the second instance of Copyright infringement by Christie during this campaign (first was the NY Times).

I, obviously biased for Daggett, feel that this does merit more than a single line and the attention should be raised to the fact that this is the second instance of infringement by Christie and Christie's ethics should be called into question. This is a man people are going to chose to be the governor. If they chose to do so that is fine, but they should be made aware of his immoral, illegal and unethical behaviors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.132.117 (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I wasn't expecting that at all. Well, this isn't a forum and I'm not getting into an extended discussion, but I would like to refute some of your points.

First of all, I most certainly am not editing with a pro-Christie bias. In fact, I personally dislike Christie and voted for Daggett (like you) today – i.e. I have no bias in favor of Christie whatsoever. I have sought (successfully, I feel) to maintain a neutral point of view at all times when editing these articles, and I don't think my edits can be construed as supporting any candidate, and certainly not Christie.

You, on the other hand, are editing with a sort of anti-Christie bias, and admittedly so. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and the goal is to present the facts from a neutral point of view, without skewed coverage in favor of one side or the other. It's fine to add neutrally worded information about controversies involving Christie, but it's not fine to give undue weight to minor controversies or to electioneer in this article. Unfortunately, you are doing the latter and not the former. Your edits have had the aim of making Christie look bad, whether it's with regards to this Monty Python "issue" or with regards to sensationalizing Christie's distant family tie to the Mafia (your edits at Christopher J. Christie. That's what's unacceptable here, and I'm sorry you feel that I am editing with a pro-Christie bias. I truly am not; I'm just trying to remove libelous or defamatory material from these articles so they remain as encyclopedic as possible.

As to your other concerns:

You are correct that the first ref in the article (which you removed here) did not substantiate the sentence it followed. However, the citation did not "point to an negative Corzine story from August" as you contend; rather, it cited an October 2008 article from The Star-Ledger about Corzine's vulnerability in early polls. I hope you understand – a news story in a nonpartisan mainstream newspaper is not biased against Corzine simply because it reports that Corzine is considered vulnerable.

You were wrong to remove the sentence stating that Christie has led in most of the polls of the race. You claim that this is "untrue" and wonder whether I'm a Christie supporter in your edit summary here, but a cursory examination of the polling section of the article shows that it is indeed a fact that Christie has led in most polls, although more recently the race has been a dead heat – as the lead stated before you altered it.

You also complain, "When I posted information that was pro-daggett you down played it." I'm not sure what you're referring to, exactly, although I will note that material that is blatantly in favor of one candidate is obviously not WP:NPOV. I believe you may be referring to the edits (here and here) where you bolded certain sentences to emphasize Daggett's endorsement by the Sierra Club and the media's response to his debate performance. You did this at the same time as you were bolding information about Christie's scandals and inserting uncited information about Christie's relative in the Mafia. I reverted here and explained why here and here.

You further complain, "When I posted information that was negative toward Christie you removed it." Ditto the above: What you added was unsourced, biased/sensationalized, and gave undue weight to an issue (Christie's relative in the Mafia). I toned it down for you and explained my rationale, as described above.

Ultimately, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am editing without bias as far as I can tell, and I think your accusations are unfounded. Also, please stop electioneering in the article. Take care. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph per your rationale. It isn't at all a notable event in the election and it's sole purpose on this article is to campaign on the article. To the IP poster above, please see WP:NOT#Forum. No serious poster here is interested in having a political debate but in writing an encyclopedia article that accurately describes the event.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jersey Devil. Those were my thoughts exactly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the News section on the front page

Hey there, I'm an editor whose been working on the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009, and I think we have a decent chance of getting that article on the front page of Wikipedia tonight, in the "In the News" section on the right side. But I think we have an even better chance if we come up with a good hook that covers both our articles. The one used on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates right now is:

"Voters go to the polls in elections in the United States for Governors of Virginia, New Jersey and the Northern Mariana Islands, and special elections for two Congressional districts, and several municipal elections."

That seems a bit lengthy to me, and less likely to be picked. Any suggestions to tighten that? We might drop the Marianas, and maybe the congressional districts? Certainly if the winners are of the same party, it will make for a tighter statement, like "Republicans Bob and Chris won..." verses mixed results that turn out like "Republican Bob won in VA while Democrat Jon won in NJ..." Not to say that's my politics, but that how it might start for the main page. If the Conservative Doug Hoffman wins in NY-23, it could get even longer "Republican Bob, Democrat Jon, and Conservative Doug won..." which might led us to drop party monikers. Ideas?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alone, the NJ race would have no chance at getting onto ITN; ITN candidates are considered from a worldwide perspective, and a gubernatorial election in one state in one country does not hold enough worldwide significance. A hook covering all recent elections would stand a better chance, but I won't cast bets in favour due to the reasoning why NJ alone couldn't succeed. Best thing to do is nominate, and then consensus can be drawn from there. HonouraryMix (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Republicans won in both states, they could be bundled together that way. it also looks as though Democrats may win both congressional special elections, so those could be bundled into one sentence as well. Exclude the Marianas as their election isn't until Saturday. In any case, nominate and we'll see what the consensus is at WP:ITN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malware Host?

As a precaution, I've removed a link sourcing "Uncle Floyd's write-in campaign". The referenced website has been flagged by McAfee "Site Advisor" as a possible trojan distributor (IRC/Flood trojan).

I'm unsure of Wikipedia policy/process as to the display of suspect links as sources both within an article and in its history and am soliciting comments from anyone versed in dealing with this type of issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article references, there are numerous links to this website. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jake. PolitickerNJ.com is considered a reliable online news source – indeed, it is perhaps the best such news source for research regarding New Jersey politics, given its unique level of detail. Now, I don't use McAfee, but I've never had any problems with PolitickerNJ.com and I don't really think these qualify as "suspect links." However, I don't have an experience with this issue, so I don't feel qualified to answer your questions about Wikipedia policy/process regarding suspect links. I'll try to find someone who's familiar with the process. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I agree that "links/content hosted by a 'suspect website'" is probably more correct. That being said, I'm somewhat surprised to find that discovering a reference to this quite contemporary security issue within Wikipedia "help" is so difficult. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit further, I'm less confident now that links themselves aren't suspect as well. If I'm reading the more detailed McAfee report correctly, it appears that the malware attack (March 2009) was triggered by accessing a link to a specific article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was unsuccessful in soliciting advice on this subject from individual users, I've raised the issue at the External Links Noticeboard. Since you've got all the details, I suggest you explain the whole issue there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I do recall stumbling across that particular noticeboard as a plausible noticeboard for inquiring about this...but moved on looking for something more tailored to security considerations...which is, apparently (and somewhat surprisingly), non-existent.

Your issue summation leaves little for me to add that I can see, so I'll just monitor to see what develops. Thanks again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The security issue appears to have been resolved and I've restored the "Uncle Floyd" link. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error in vote tallies

The numbers on the infobox don't match the numbers on the table in the section titled "Results". For some reason the NJ division of elections site only has unofficial vote tallies that also don't match either the numbers on the infobox or the numbers on the table in the Results section. [1] What should be done about this?--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NJ returns for '08 weren't "official" until early December. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then for consistency I am going to use the NJ DoE unofficial tallies in this article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Star-Ledger returns are more up to date, why not use them till official results are available? JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the DoE results should carry more weight since it is the government institution that oversees the election. We can always change it after the official results come in.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

There seems to be some disagreement over whether File:2009 NJ gubernatorial results by muni.svg or File:New Jersey Gubernatorial Election Results by County, 2009.svg belongs in the infobox. I prefer the municipalities map because it contains more information; however, User:Jerzeykydd thinks the counties map is better because it's consistent with other similar articles. (There's also a similar debate at United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010, though the fact that Massachusetts election results are reported by municipality rather than county suggests that the logic applied there can't necessarily be applied here too.) Would anyone care to state their views? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is consistancy, why not include the county map up top and the muni map down with the vote totals? HerbertMMarx (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Municipality. Consistency in Wikipedia is good but has no place in the municipality/county map debate. The United States is a federation of self-governing states: what happens in one state need naught happen in every state. Imposing county maps on all 50 states doesn't consider county roles differ considerably between states. Again, governments don't all operate under the same central rules in America. The Massachusetts article is about a U.S. Senate election. Gubernatorial elections are more local and deserve the more local municipality map. National election articles don't have to be the same as state election articles down to the last little detail.

But even in the Massachusetts debate I see 6 people for the municipality map and 2 for the county map. That more people prefer the more detailed municipality map is no surprise. The fact there are some elections where a municipality map is unavailable should not drag down the quality of every American election map diagram on Wikipedia. If we stick to county maps because old elections only have them then there's no hope for better diagrams being devised. Consider the benefits of readers seeing municipality maps and wondering why their state doesn't report election results by municipality.

If we absolutely need a consensus, it should be municipality maps when they're available and county maps when they're not. But really, the only consistency for election maps we need is coloring Democratic wins blue and Republican wins red.

Like Shakescene in the Massachusetts debate, I don't support the municipality to county change that was made in this article before a consensus was reached. Aki Mononoke (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Municipality. I think information content supersedes consistency, so the municipal results map seems better to me. In a nod to consistency, however, I think the current red and blue values of this municipal results map should be replaced by the less bold hues used by the county map (and the party shading template). I've gone ahead and made a new version of the municipal results map for this election, titled New Jersey Gubernatorial Election Results by Municipality, 2009.svg. Emw (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be conducting this review. I have not yet finished, but here are some comments thus far. Please respond to them line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go along. Good luck!

General

Regarding the citations, some of them use Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web, and some of them are mere URLs. The latter cites should be changed to the templates.

Of course. This one will take a while, so I hope you won't mind my putting it off until tomorrow. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It was my understanding that in a lead, you only have to cite something that could be met with skepticism, or was such a specific fact that it warranted a citation. But in the first paragraph, you cite simple facts like the names and numbers of challengers, the fact that Christie won, and the percentages. All of these things are more than covered by the body of the article, and cited there. Do you feel these citations are really necessary in the opening paragraph?

Fixed I agree. I've removed one reference accordingly, moved a couple of others to other places in the article, and left two. The ones I left support some of the numbers given, which I think is a good practice even in the lead, while the other supports a claim that could be considered mildly extraordinary (and therefore is left in per WP:REDFLAG). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"While polls taken during most of the campaign showed Christie in the lead, polls taken over the last two weeks leading up to the election showed a much closer race between Corzine and Christie. In these most recent polls, Corzine led in some, Christie led in others, and still others indicated a statistical dead heat." I think this could be worded slightly better. I recommend, "Although most polls taken throughout the campaign indicated Christie was in the lead, the race became much closer in the final two weeks before the election. Near the end of the race, different polls placed both Corzine and Christie in the lead, whereas others described it as a statistical dead heat."

Fixed Good idea. I changed your sentence a bit, but overall it is better. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major candidates

Perhaps you should wikilink "Freeholder" to Board of Chosen Freeholders, since I find most people unfamiliar with New Jersey politics have no idea what a Freeholder is.

Fixed Good idea. It's easy to forget that only NJ has this particular layer of government. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidates

You have a mixture of present tense ("is running under") and past tense ("was unanimously selected") in this section. There needs to be consistency, so please make sure everything is changed to past tense.
This link, this link, this link, this link and this link (currently refs #9, #12, #13, #17 and #19) are all dead. Can you replace them?
There is also a lack of consistency here in that some of these candidates (Cullen, Leinsdorf, Parson, Stein) are listed in full sentences, whereas the rest are listed in a "Name - Party" sort of format. They should all be the same format, one or the other.
Can you find a reliable secondary source to replace the primary Gary Steele source? I guess you could argue this source is acceptable, but a newspaper article or some other secondary source would be better.

Write-in candidates

Again with the tenses. You have present ("is running") and past ("ran a write-in campaign") where they should all be past.
Again, like the Gary Steele source above, I think this source and this source should probably be replaced with reliable secondary sources if possible.
What makes this source and this source reliable sources?
External links within the body of the article, like Johnsonsville Press and Popular Capitalist View, are not allowed and need to be removed. Also, are those news publications, or web sites? If they are the former, they should be italicized?
The bullet point about Klapper includes a disproportionate amount of information compared to the others. Any particular reason for this? If not, it should be scaled back. Also, the reference to "Mr. Klapper" should just read "Klapper".

Primary Election Candidates

Again, I see you used politickerNJ.com a number of times here. Can you demonstrate why this is a reliable source, as opposed to some blog or website? It seems to me most of this information could be cited by newspapers or other reliable publications rather than this site anyway...
All the other candidates without Wikipedia pages are not wikilinked, but for some reason there's a redlink for Jeff Boss. Unless there's a particular reason for this, I'd remove it.
This link (the one for Merkt) redirects back to the main page, not the article cited. Can you fix that link? If not, remove the URL and use it as an offline source...

More to come! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hunter. I've now returned from Montreal and will begin addressing your concerns shortly. Thanks for doing this review. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry, I didn't know you were away. I haven't finished my review yet, but I didn't want to continue until I knew for sure you were going to respond. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for not getting back to you until now. I guess I wasn't expecting such a prompt response; the last time I nominated an article for GA status, it languished at GAN for about three months before it was reviewed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

According to the Linkchecker, there are a lot of dead links—28 all told; another eight need to be formatted. This will not pass GAC unless those can get taken care of. For that, I am imposing a deadline of 8 days. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 8 days have come and gone, I'm going to go ahead and fail this for now. But the article has a lot of potential, so please don't get frustrated. Once you fix the above comments and dead links, I'm sure it will be ready to nominate again. Best of luck! — Hun ter Ka hn 05:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229055520/http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/2009results/09general/09-official-general-election-gov-lt-gov-tallies-120109.pdf to http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/2009results/09general/09-official-general-election-gov-lt-gov-tallies-120109.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://lonegan.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=1233&mname=ArticleGroup&rpid=6052
Corrected formatting/usage for http://njlp.org/news/partynews/candidates/688-ken-kaplan-nominated-for-governor
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americansocialistvoter.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://garytsteeleforgovernor.webs.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wnyc.org/blog/lehrer/archives/000604.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20090617_Corzine__Christie_kick_off_campaign.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politickernj.com/max/34181/gubernatorial-candidates-battle-wayne
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/countyclerk/2009%20primary/summary%20report.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.njoutdooralliance.org/chairmans/christie/endorsement.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117024822/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117024822/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117024822/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2009/new_jersey/election_2009_new_jersey_governor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]