# Talk:History of Briarcliff Manor

Karen Smith, Co-President of the Briarcliff Manor/Scarborough Historical Society, showed me an hour ago her filing cabinet full of prints of her digital photos of old buildings and other historic places.  Also issues of a newsletter that compiled reports of local people from their armed service assignments in WWII.  And they have lots of other materials and no time to organize it properly.  So, they could use help in putting this information online including uploading to Wikimedia Commons.  They're at http://briarcliffhistory.org and mail@briarcliffhistory.org. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Briarcliff Manor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
In "Early history", rewrite "area of Westchester which included Briarcliff Manor" to "area of modern day Westchester, which includes Briarcliff Manor." If Westchester was around in 1693, then "area of Westchester, including what is now Briarcliff Manor."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Created in 1683, and done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"A sufficient number of firefighters were serving that the village requested volunteers ages 16–18 to join the Briarcliff Manor Fire Department;" - Should be "number of firefighters who."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the sentence makes sense even though it's easier to understand when spoken out. It's saying that such a number served that the village had to request volunteers. I rephrased it.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
No problems found here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
Reference section; follows consistent format.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
B. Citations to reliable sources: 
Accepting offline sources AGF, spot-checked online sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
C. No original research: 
All content attributable to sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
All major aspects covered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
B. Focused: 
Focused on the subject, not too lengthy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutral, no bias.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Stable, almost entirely a single-author article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images licensed for the US.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Relevant and captioned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Overall: Almost.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Y All issues resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: 
Just a couple prose issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Passed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@3family6: Thanks for offering to review and setting this up, but are you planning on getting to this?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Tomorrow. I wanted to get to it yesterday, but jury duty wiped me out.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@3family6: Ok, wow that was fast. I addressed your comments.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Review finished on the DYK.  Nicely done.  As a drive by comment, I would say that I was greatly surprised by the lack of links to this well-developed article.  It is almost a WP:Orphan. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone did a "New York History" template, this problem could be resolved in a big way.  Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Briarcliff Manor. 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/20130112001846/http://mahopaclibrarysite.org/mplex/addendum.htm to http://mahopaclibrarysite.org/mplex/addendum.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151216231729/http://westchester.news12.com/news/fire-destroys-beloved-community-pavilion-1.11223137 to http://westchester.news12.com/news/fire-destroys-beloved-community-pavilion-1.11223137
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) 15:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)