Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department/GA1

GA Review
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)

Early 1900s

 * 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

 * "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 -  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)