# Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

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
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
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
#### Early 1900s
There should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; 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
"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
"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
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 - &nbsp; 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
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)

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. {{cite web}}: 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:

the title: Municipal Services &  Financial Overview: Town and Village of Ossining, NY
the date: April 2012
for whom it as prepared: Town and Village of Ossining, NY
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)


### Briarcliff Manor Fire Department
@AirshipJungleman29: I saw that you added the notability orange banner to the article in March 2024. @Apocheir, Epicgenius,  and Hog Farm: you also commented on the original GAR about the article's notability. Should the article go to WP:AfD, or should the notablity banner be removed? Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720, honestly, I think this should go to AfD if there is an actual concern about notability. Aside from that issue, I think this article does meet the GA criteria (which for some reason don't include notability). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: If this article is deleted, a procedural GAR can be opened to ensure the article is delisted. Its GA status can also be included in the AfD nomination to make it more likely that the proper process is followed. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)