# Talk:Jugtown Historic District

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jugtown Historic District. 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/20130516134942/http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/1identify/nrsr_lists/mercer.pdf to http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/1identify/nrsr_lists/mercer.pdf
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) 00:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I just consumed two cups of coffee before doing a read through and I still nodded off asleep twice.  I'm serious. If you're going to write so formal and dry, there are tricks you can use to make a boring topic exciting for the reader.  One of the easiest ways to do this is to identify the most interesting sentences in each paragraph and try to draw that into a tighter narrative.  I was able to identify these things fairly easily in your prose, and I can't help but notice that you did the opposite; it appears that you buried the most interesting aspects of each section deep within the paragraphs instead of bringing them to the surface.  This is curious to me. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Some examples:
Lead: pottery industry, commercial development and growth, canal, college, zoning. It's written like you just don't care, so why should the reader? Make us care about the subject.
Etymology: You've got enough here for an SNL episode, so I won't touch this.  I did laugh several times, however, imagining the role of Mikey Day dressed in colonial attire, making inquiries, etc.  That's a joke, btw.
Initial settlement: Nothing about pre-European inhabitants; what was there before?  There is a prehistory here, and I tend to cover it in most articles I write about. All you say is that it was a "tract" of land.  Are you trying to put the reader to sleep?  I feel like you are doing this intentionally.  Do you dislike the subject in some way?  Because it comes across as if you are just phoning it in.  Where's the excitement?  Where the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom.  This makes me very angry, very angry indeed. (Another joke, in case it needs to be pointed out)
Pottery hub: Probably the most interesting thing about the article, yet you don't say more than a sentence about the type of pottery, and it's way late in the section where you say the jugs were "stone and clay".  That's it?  Three words about the basis for the name of the town and its most important commercial endeavor?  What were they used for?  Did they trade outside the area? Etc. You also don't talk much about whether slaves were used to make the pottery, but you insinuate that they were.  If you want to maintain interest, then discuss the things readers find naturally interesting.
Industrial decline and women's college: You say the ceramics competition from the next town over caused the decline of the local industry, but you don't explain how or why. It's also odd that you mix the industrial decline with the establishment of the women's college as a historical epoch, as if the promotion of women's education was representative of a cultural decline.  I found that odd, I wonder if others might as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I also want to point out that Zink 2024 makes the topic exciting and breathtaking.  I don't see why you can't import that same enthusiasm here. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the honest (and entertaining) feedback. I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, so I think I overcompensate with an excessively dry style. I'll try to spice it up a little. Lbal (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)