Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Briarcliff Manor Fire Department has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Briarcliff Manor Fire Department is part of the Briarcliff Manor series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 2, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
May 6, 2015 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheQ Editor (talk · contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


I'll take this. But be aware that I'm reviewing two articles at the same time. It will take longer than usual.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 17:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, thanks again for reviewing.--ɱ (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Just saw this now, I'll be replying and editing within the next few days or sooner.--ɱ (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
TheQ Editor: OK, I replied to your comments.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Lead[edit]

  • 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)

Organization[edit]

  • This section has no wikilinks
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)

History[edit]

Early 1900s[edit]

  • There should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement.
I probably got all of them.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Also during the war, in 1944..." should go before "In May 1946..."
Done.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Per MOS, 5000 should be 5,000 and 6000 to 6,000.
Done, good catch.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Late 1900s[edit]

  • "recent" - no recent
Done.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • wikilink "two-way radios"
I dunno, I feel that that's a common term.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparatus[edit]

  • "weapons-of-mass destruction trailer" what exactly is this?
Similar to this, it's become common in Fire Departments contemporarily.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Other[edit]

  • Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images.
Fixed as best as I could; the images are more worth including than worth having the formatting a bit nicer.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The image captions should be treated like a sentence, with a period.
Well, usually not all captions are, just ones in the form of a sentence (subj., verb, obj.). I'll fix the applicable ones.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • numerous cases of no non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement.
Are there any more cases of this?--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Total lack of secondary sources[edit]

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)


deprecated cs1 parameter |coauthors=[edit]

In the article is this cs1 template:

{{cite web|last=Stefko|first=Joseph|title=Municipal Services & Financial Overview: Town and Village of Ossining, NY|url=http://www.cgr.org/ossining/docs/BaselineReport.pdf|publisher=Center for Governmental Research|accessdate=February 27, 2014|coauthors=Town and Village of Ossining, NY|date=April 2012}}
Stefko, Joseph (April 2012). "Municipal Services & Financial Overview: Town and Village of Ossining, NY" (PDF). Center for Governmental Research. Retrieved February 27, 2014.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This template includes the deprecated parameter |coauthors=Town and Village of Ossining, NY. That parameter will be going away.

When I got to this article I visited the link in the template to make sure that I was doing the right thing. On page 2 of the referenced document are listed:

  1. the title: Municipal Services & Financial Overview: Town and Village of Ossining, NY
  2. the date: April 2012
  3. for whom it as prepared: Town and Village of Ossining, NY
  4. who prepared it: Joseph Stefco

The cs1 template gets most of that right. What it gets wrong is that it identifies the party for whom it was prepared as a coauthor. For this reason, I deleted |coauthors= and its contents with this edit.

Editor Ɱ reverts and in the edit summary claims that the extra detail is useful and not harming anything. Perhaps it is useful though probably not since in the |coauthors= parameter it falsely claims Town and Village of Ossining, NY is an author. Editor Ɱ further suggests that white space I added to the citation to make it easier for me to read was inappropriate. I'll not contest that as it really is unimportant. The issue is the incorrect use of an author-holding parameter (whether it is deprecated or no) to hold content that is not an author. |coauthors=Town and Village of Ossining, NY should be removed from this citation.

Trappist the monk (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Okay, upon review of the document, I believe I misinterpreted the full title; you're right that it's likely more of a subheading than a byline. As for the spaces: all of the references I've ever submitted have no extra spaces or line breaks; it helps to condense the references. Readability isn't too much of an issue for me; it's very legible on the saved page.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 01:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)