Briarcliff Manor Fire Department is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hudson Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Hudson Valley of New York 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.
The Lead states there are four engines while the infobox states there are 3.
In the lead it's listing the number of firetrucks. In the infobox, I list engines (pumper trucks) as 3 and ladders (hook and ladder trucks) as 1. Should I be more clear on the lead, or just say 4 engines in the infobox?--ɱ(talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's all mentioning local organization and all, nothing that has a Wikipedia article or section. I don't think it's against any policy or guideline for a section without wikilinks.--ɱ(talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The list should be transformed into a sentence.
I debated that, although it's the standard on other FD articles, and it's less clear to readers; the content gets muddled in the rest of the prose...--ɱ(talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There are no secondary sources in the article, which usually leads to an AfD, not a GA. Abductive (reasoning) 05:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Cute, but please read. I cite numerous texts, including a publication by the government of the Village of Briarcliff Manor, as well as two publications by village historical committees, one of which was an independently published work written by a neutral, reliable, and authoritative historical society. As well, I cite The New York Times, which I would call nothing but a 'secondary source'.--ɱ(talk) 05:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As well, this review has closed. Please voice all concerns at the article's talk page, or if you have qualms with my writing and citation styles, please direct your concerns to my talk page. Thank you.--ɱ(talk) 06:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The NYT article does not analyze the topic of the article. So it is not a secondary source on this topic. It is a secondary source on John Cheever. And I think this GA was not proper. Abductive (reasoning) 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't matter whatsoever, and you're ignoring the other secondary sources that I listed. And it's not at all your place to discuss this here; this page is for the nominator and reviewer to discuss the review, which closed long before you got to it. You're failing to comply with my demand; get off this page and use the proper channels: my or this article's talk page.--ɱ(talk) 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)