Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Briarcliff Manor Public Library/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2017.

Briarcliff Manor Public Library

 * Nominator(s): ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration: the Briarcliff Manor Public Library. This is part of a good topic about Briarcliff Manor I've been helping write as part of a volunteer position at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or edit the article. I'd hope you can help make the article even better – I believe there's always room for improvement. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Review by Fencer2013
I thought that this article was excellent. It was a good summary of the Library's history, and made great use of relevant pictures. The references were also cited correctly, and the dates used for this article were very accurate.Fencer2013 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews
Support: I read this article thoroughly and support that it should be a featured article. The article is thorough in its presentation of the facts and the organization of the material is excellent. The images are also of excellent quality and I especially like the map of the Historical Library Locations that has the images of each location hyperlinked to the respective pin on the map.Ajfeist (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry
I have some comments but am not doing a full featured article review.

First, it surprises me that there is so much coverage of this library. This is a library in a town of 8000 people. I know that this library serves some other nearby communities outside of its city limits, but most libraries in major cities fail to even meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. This library has been the particular subject of attentive journalism by major media sources. I know this place is near New York City, but articles like these are rare for any library. The staff at this library must have excellent public relations skills. There are lots of organizations with much larger budgets doing much more unusual work than a community library and which seek to get media coverage but fail to do so. I bring this up because whereas no amount of research will get many topics to Wikipedia's feature article status just for lack of coverage, I think that this unusual library actually has enough coverage to make it eligible to pass.

I question the "operations" section. While some people might expect that an encyclopedia article about an organization would be sure to cover that organization's basic functions, Wikipedia has upheld a long-standing tension and conflict to avoid summarizing primary sources about organizations' products and services. There have been tens of thousands of requests by companies and organizations in every country and every sector, and the status quo has been to tell organizations that the Wikipedia article covering them would reflect only what third party sources saw fit to describe in journalism and research. Some of the information in this section is of the sort that does sometimes go into Wikidata and infoboxes, and some might be excessive coverage as compared to what Wikipedia allows. I like libraries but if there is a concession here that favoritism weakens Wikipedia's integrity when we forbid commercial organizations from making the same demand. Anyone wanting to help Wikipedia establish better policy could jump into the 20,000 page 10 year conversation and epic drama centered at Notability (organizations and companies).

Some images like the one at File:Briarcliff library expansion 21.jpg seem to be in conflict with Commons' requirements for copyright clearance. I do not feel that the rationales given in the copyright section would pass Commons review, like for example, if "BMSHS owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control" then still without a copyright release the Commons community would delete the file. "If The BMSHS makes its content available for personal and non-commercial educational uses consistent with the principles of fair use." then a low resolution version of the file can be hosted on English Wikipedia, but going forward, I recommending asking Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright for tough advice. I expect they would perform deletion within hours of raising the question.

In the "Librarians (1921–1955)" table I am unable to understand the sourcing system. Many different sources are cited and I do not see whether they all back this information. It seems more likely that this information is coming from different sources. Somehow, I wish the sources could be connected in an obvious way to the information which they back.

Other things could be said. These are my starting comments. I might comment again after someone else has done more review.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am glad for your critique. Your analysis of notability is good, however it doesn't mention the notable art exhibits or historical and architectural significance, both of the library and of the former train station, which I feel adds to the importance of this topic over that of numerous local libraries. Nevertheless I believe articles can be created for most libraries, perhaps even FAs if enough research is done.


 * As for the operations section - while I believe articles in general are meant to summarize independent sources, FAs (based on their criteria) are also meant to summarize all relevant aspects of the topic. Also I noted in the last review that specifics such as opening hours and days are common and accepted in articles and there should otherwise be a guideline against it. I noted that the article Supreme Court of the United States has had operating hours information since at least 2010. It's hard to rely on precedents as there are only six FAs in WikiProject Organizations and no FAs for public libraries (and WMFLabs hasn't seemed to work recently), so I can only rely on the fact that this is neutral information that is important to readers. Anyway, most of this section is backed by independent sources and all is verifiable by independent sources, however self-published sources are not being used improperly here, according to the linked policy.


 * As for the image licensing, I initially used an improper license for archives files and was notified by a Commons administrator. Later and with permission, I duplicated the license adopted by the Smithsonian Institution; this license and the Smithsonian's (and images under these licenses) have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by various Commons administrators. I don't believe this is worth creating another issue over, and regardless of specific terminology, institutions that can verify that to the best of their knowledge the images have no known copyright restrictions have been able to upload files to Commons for years. Please see Commons:Category:No known restrictions license tags and understand that your objections are against likely tens or hundreds of thousands of files and many uploaders. I can remove and simplify some language to make it more in line with most of those tags however.


 * As for the table, I didn't see it as essential to link up each citation with each fact; many if not most articles' tables just include a list of sources at the end to prevent clutter. I'll try it in-line. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding.
 * I am still unsure about operations, but I can agree that the situation is uncertain and there are limited precedents. Besides FAs, there are precedents in all sorts of articles. You made an editorial decision to present some things. For libraries, many people wish to list special collections, because besides location that is what typically makes a particular library different from others. Other primary source information which is sometimes presented are the fields in the user box, lawsuits, budget and pay of director, and major donors. There is no consensus to consistently put all of these things in based on primary sources, but I confirm that sometimes information like the kind you presented is included, so I can go with that.
 * I continue to have doubts about that image. I fail to recognize how the "no known restrictions" tag applies because there is a known restriction - the image is copyrighted and the copyright holder has not applied a free license to it. The "no known restrictions" tag is typically used for images which seem published before 1923 and in the public domain, but which may implausibly have been published later or in a government which has a copyright term of more than 95 years. That library picture is fewer than 10 years old and you identify a copyright holder who has not applied a free license to it. Can you show me any comparable case where a picture after 1989 (a year significant in the Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart) uses the "no known restrictions" tag?
 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no known restrictions; the images had been the property of the library, taken by the former library director as part of an information page about the library's extension and hosted on the library's website. The current director knows of this and passed on those files as well as a whole binder full of historical library images and print publications to the village historical society. These are just a few of the other documents included:
 * Though I believe this discussion is more appropriate elsewhere, sure here are a plenty of post-1989 no known copyright images, and I can link plenty more:
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:69.79.1_threequarter_PS6.jpg (part of a series with no distinct photograph copyrights claimed)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27After_Iraq%27_Debate_23rd_June_2003_(4150615166).jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27After_Iraq%27_Debate_23rd_June_2003_(4150615502).jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Description-_A_traditional_dry_stone_wall_is_built_and_displayed_in_the_Masters_of_the_Building_Arts_program_at_the_2001_Smithsonian_Folklife_Festival._(2548949080).jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1993_Clinton_and_Bush_Inauguration.jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_M._Sackler_Gallery_-_2011.jpg
 * ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I changed the references on the table as you recommended. I also added a reference to the operations section, so now the only self-published information about the library is in the first two sentences. I have outdated sources that cite similar information to those sentences, however that content changes too frequently (combined with the obscurity of the topic) to likely find any sources except the library itself. However as stated, self-published sources are by policy okay so long as the content isn't controversial or extreme. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job with in-line references. Associating people with organizations can get contentious since lots of organizations try to do this with dubious sourcing. This seems resolved.
 * I can leave the operations section content aside. Stepping away from this FA, if you would like to talk more somewhere else about proposing a policy for what sort of primary source information should be in articles, especially for biographies and organizations, then I would be interested in drafting and signing off on some proposal. Data in the infobox is one common proposal, and you listed the director and budget there which is common and less controversial. In the body of the article you choose operating hours, administration system, institutional affiliations, and a service listing. No one should dispute that this is factual, but there is limited real estate in the Wikipedia article. Practically every commercial organization seeks to have a product and service listing in Wikipedia. Whereas those are dismissed routinely, when it comes to nonprofit organizations sometimes there is more sympathy for citing nonprofit sources. I get uneasy about this being allowed for nonprofits and prohibited to for-profits without a policy confirming that Wikipedia permits one thing and prohibits the other. Other public sources present a range of other information, like the fact of any lawsuits and sources of income, which practically all organizations would seek to obscure. In the case of libraries, museums, and archives some critical information desired by the Wikipedia community is a listing of special collections, which along with location is a major distinguishing factor of one institution to the next. What you did with operations might not be wrong but I also will not say that it is without controversy.
 * You are correct that there seems to be a history of using the "no known copyright restrictions" alone on Commons. I was not aware of this. I thought that the intended use of that tag was to be paired with another copyright tag. I am ready to confirm that your use of this tag is no different from what professionals at prestigious organizations have done. If the Brooklyn Museum and Smithsonian are doing this with images, then no burden to further rationalize this should be on you or these images, so I can withdraw my objection and give approval.
 * At this point all of my objections have been answered and I would defend this article on all these grounds if the issues were raised again.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job with in-line references. Associating people with organizations can get contentious since lots of organizations try to do this with dubious sourcing. This seems resolved.
 * I can leave the operations section content aside. Stepping away from this FA, if you would like to talk more somewhere else about proposing a policy for what sort of primary source information should be in articles, especially for biographies and organizations, then I would be interested in drafting and signing off on some proposal. Data in the infobox is one common proposal, and you listed the director and budget there which is common and less controversial. In the body of the article you choose operating hours, administration system, institutional affiliations, and a service listing. No one should dispute that this is factual, but there is limited real estate in the Wikipedia article. Practically every commercial organization seeks to have a product and service listing in Wikipedia. Whereas those are dismissed routinely, when it comes to nonprofit organizations sometimes there is more sympathy for citing nonprofit sources. I get uneasy about this being allowed for nonprofits and prohibited to for-profits without a policy confirming that Wikipedia permits one thing and prohibits the other. Other public sources present a range of other information, like the fact of any lawsuits and sources of income, which practically all organizations would seek to obscure. In the case of libraries, museums, and archives some critical information desired by the Wikipedia community is a listing of special collections, which along with location is a major distinguishing factor of one institution to the next. What you did with operations might not be wrong but I also will not say that it is without controversy.
 * You are correct that there seems to be a history of using the "no known copyright restrictions" alone on Commons. I was not aware of this. I thought that the intended use of that tag was to be paired with another copyright tag. I am ready to confirm that your use of this tag is no different from what professionals at prestigious organizations have done. If the Brooklyn Museum and Smithsonian are doing this with images, then no burden to further rationalize this should be on you or these images, so I can withdraw my objection and give approval.
 * At this point all of my objections have been answered and I would defend this article on all these grounds if the issues were raised again.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Image Review by PointsofNoReturn
I have reviewed the images that are in the article. The images are either done by Ɱ or have no known copyright restrictions from the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. They are 100% allowed on Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons). For the content of the images, all the images are relevant to the article and illustrate the topic at hand well. The captions are perfectly adequate for the images they describe. Thus, I believe that this article passes the media portion of the featured article criteria. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Ah. I see that this has been around since the end of January, but has only just been transcluded. With only one support, it has suffocated, and has little chance of promotion as it stands. However, as this was a "filing" mistake, I'd be prepared to archive this and allow the nominator to immediately renominate without the usual two week wait. If it is transcluded this time, it might have a fighting chance. The alternative is to leave it here, where it has little chance of success, and with the best will in the world, I can't justify leaving this open much more than one more week. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One support? I count four people... FACs should be better-arranged to attract more commentators. I've had this problem for years - few people even leave any comment on any of my FACs, and FACs are arranged to fail if few people do. It's quite honestly silly. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is only one person who has stated that they support. Also, you will not attract reviews if the page is not visible on FAC. And to be honest, I don't think we can promote this without wider scrutiny than the few who been here so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? Fencer2013, Ajfeist, Bluerasberry, and PointsofNoReturn all only said supporting comments, with Bluerasberry's only concerns having been resolved. If you really need clarification, ping them to ask them, but this seems really silly. You can't expect newer editors to understand that FACs often use (but don't require) bolding the word "support" at the beginning of a comment. do you agree with this? Sarastro - yes I know it won't have views if it's not visible. As I said, it was a mistake. However none of my FACs really get more than one or two people I have never heard of/interacted with, and because of that, most of them have failed. This process needs to do away with failing articles that don't receive enough attention, because the FAC process never receives enough attention. Especially not for less-networked editors like me.  ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAC instructions, they do explain this quite clearly. And I'm afraid any failures of the FAC process, although you may have a point or two, cannot really be blamed in this case when you have only today transcluded this. The instructions are clear. And if you wish this article to be a FA, you will need to follow procedure. Sorry. And I am not promoting this without wider scrutiny than it has had. I maintain that your best option is to renominate. If you wish to leave it open, I cannot guarantee that it will be given much leeway as it has been open so long. Things would need to move quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ian has stated that as a bare minimum, FAs need three supporting reviewers and an image and source review. If you give me another week or two, I could manage to find someone to give a source review, and that would meet his requirements. Yes I forgot one step this time, transcluding, but that really should be automated; transcluding is automated in many other areas of WP. The process is too complicated and you shouldn't fault my review for my mistakenly forgetting one small technical step. Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your willingness to extend this review's time given the circumstances. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Werónika
Thanks to for your hard work on this article. It's very well-written, interesting, and comprehensive. Good use of images in particular. Most of my comments are pretty minor—just grammar and stylistic fixes.
 * "and is located the edge of the village's Walter W. Law Memorial Park". Yikes, should probably be "and is located on the edge", no?
 * "sites including public school buildings". Should be "sites, including..."
 * "adding the section in which the library is housed today". So this implies that the actual library is only housed in a portion of the current building? Maybe clarify what the rest of the building houses in the lead.
 * It is in the next sentence. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "and an eight-member board of trustees was appointed". I don't usually mind passive voice, but this grates on me. Who appointed the board of trustees?
 * Not exactly sure, sources don't specify. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "which became 3,000 by 1926, approximately 6,000 by 1939, and by 1952, 8,000 volumes". This would sound better if written in parallel structure ("which became approximately 3,000 by 1926, 6,000 by 1939, and 8,000...").
 * "In 1988, the library's collections". Should be "by 1988."
 * "a present branch of the International Union of Operating Engineers". Do you mean that it was then used as the headquarters for that branch of the IUOE? Because when you write "a present branch," that could also mean that is the current function of the Briarcliff Farms office building.
 * "Desiring a larger and more centrally-located space... the library was relocated again". This prepositional phrase seems tonally off because it doesn't say who desired that space. I would consider rewriting, especially since it sounds awkward to pile all the prepositions in the front before the clause.
 * "on the second floor of its recreation building on Old Route 100 (then part of NY Route 100) near the village downtown." Fix the modifiers. You shouldn't say that Old Route 100 is near the village downtown unless it's true for the entire road.
 * "From the beginning, the..." Redundant, unless the recreation center rooms somehow became bigger later on. If it's true for the entire situation, you don't need to say that it happened from the beginning.
 * The collection grows, so I'm specifying that the space was too small for their collection even when they first moved in. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "(at the intersection of two highways[20])". Move the citation to the outside of the parenthesis. Also, this modifier seems awkwardly placed. Are you describing the area, or the traffic?
 * The parenthetical statement describes why it was a heavily trafficked area. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "and was thus hazardous to children". There's no need to include this specifically, because traffic can be hazardous to adults as well.
 * Sources included iy; young children's safety is always a larger concern, especially for high-traffic areas with no sidewalks and places they often visit. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "...was busy with traffic... had no sidewalks nearby, and was far from the village's public school buildings." This sentence uses two "was's" and one "had", so you should combine the two verb objects together that use the same verb. e.g. "the area was busy with traffic and far from the village's public school buildings, and had no sidewalks nearby". It just makes the prose tighter.
 * "to be voted by referendum". Referendums are inherently decided by popular vote.
 * "and was not centrally located in the village". The wording is confusing. Would the library not be located in the center of the village, or would the library center (the main library) not be focused in the village?
 * Given that I never mention branch libraries (there never have been any), it should be okay.


 * "also in 1952, the village semicentennial history book notes the need for a permanent home for the library." Trivial fact not related to the library's history. I would take it out or put it somewhere else, especially since the sudden shift to present tense in the middle of the sentence was very distracting.
 * "The station had been built... In its later operation as a station." This is confusing: was it not initially meant to be a train station?
 * Not sure how better to say this, but I'm saying that around it's later existence as a station (likely around the 50s), the building was rarely used and... ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "named the street that led to the library, Library Road". Take out the comma since it's an essential phrase.
 * "In 1963, Briarcliff resident and artist Myril Adler proposed a series of exhibits of graphic art; the first showing was in October of that year." When was the proposal?
 * In 1963, is that not clear? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Adler would display". Change to "Adler displayed."
 * "In the 1980s and 90s,..." I don't see the need to clarify this statement by saying it was reported by the Times. I also don't see the need for a general statement about the popularity of videocassettes during this time period. I would suggest rewriting this sentence to focus just on the library, something along the lines of "The library experienced a significant increase in popularity of videocassettes during the 1980s and 1990s...."
 * "The library, which had 3,200 square feet (300 m2)". Should be "was 3,200 square feet" in order with previous descriptions of the library's area.
 * "led a fundraising effort raising". Put a comma between "effort" and "raising."
 * "today)[19].[31]" Fix the citation order.
 * "it failed by 13 votes, from the 871 cast". I don't know why you would include the total number of votes, but not specify exactly how many people voted for or against it? If I did my algebra right, x + x + 13 = 871, so it failed by a 429-442 vote.
 * It puts into context the amount it failed by. Several sources did it that way; it's a concise way of still displaying all of the data while writing it to be meaningful, e.g. failing by only 13 votes. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "In the early 2000s, plans began for expansion of the library building." I would like some clarification for who decided to expand the building. The board of trustees? The village board?
 * Sources also don't specify, but projects like these always would involve the institution's and municipality's board, as well as the director, village manager, and village departments like the planning board and public works. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "for the renovation and also". "Also" is redundant, because if you're doing something in addition to another thing (implied by the conjunction "and"), then you're also doing it.
 * "The original station building was renovated... in 2016. The plans were in development since as early as 2013..." Keep it in chronological order. Discuss the plans to renovate the centre in 2013 before talking about the completion of the renovation in 2016.
 * I don't think this is a big deal. It gives a better introduction through some context; I can't think of a better way of putting it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "the center's opening and the dedication to Vescio on May 30, 2016." The prepositional phrase "on May 30, 2016" could refer just to the dedication to Vesio or to both the dedication and the opening of the center. Since it's unclear, rephrase the sentence to move that up to the beginning so it refers to the entire sentence. ("On May 30,... presided over the center's opening and dedication to Vesio.") There's also no need to repeat the article "the" since it applies to both.
 * "and has a large parking lot accessible from Library Road". Is a description of the parking lot really noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? Readers would already assume it has a parking lot that is sized large enough to accommodate its audience.
 * Many municipalities don't have parking lots due to space, and it was included in sources, plus similar to days of operation, I find it relevant. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "is nearby the". Using "nearby" as a proposition is grammatically incorrect. Change to "near."
 * "borders the pool constructed". Insert a comma between "pool" and "constructed" since it's not an essential phrase.
 * "as an emergency broadcast and warming and cooling center". Can't use conjunction reduction when the conjunctions in question are different ("an emergency broadcast" vs "a warming and cooling center").
 * "and has movable furniture". This phrase confuses me. Assuming your couch isn't nailed to your floor, wouldn't all furniture be movable? What's the relevance of noting that the centre has furniture you can move around?
 * If you looked at photos it might help explain: they're lightweight, stackable, and wheeled furniture, to allow for rearranging of the room for different events or programs. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "was named in memory of Juliette Wasserman". Add some context for who Wasserman is/was (otherwise there's really no point in saying the children's room was named after some random figure).
 * It's more detail about why the rooms are named the way they are, people usually wonder this and it's good to explain. She's not notable outside the community, however. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and eight part-time employees, including reference and youth librarians." Are the reference and youth librarians part-time employees?
 * "Services include... a children's room, and a local history collection". Is a children's room really a service being provided? A service (versus a good, or something that is a feature of the library) would be something that does not include a physical transaction (like discussion).
 * It's not just a collection of books for children, there are services provided almost like a daycare. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Friends of the Briarcliff Manor Public Library is an organization through which community..." No need for passive tense; rewording to active tense ("Community members support the library through..."). Also, take out "help." They're not "helping" to support, they are supporting.
 * "books, and provided... and participated..." Reword to take out the second "and" (fix parallel structure). The verb order should be "have helped, provided, sponsored, and participated".
 * "The publication, The Changing Landscape". Take out the comma since it's an essential phrase; not all the publications were written by Mary Cheever.
 * I disagree, in this apposition it appears correct. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "occupying that space for eight years". Did it move back to the school building in 1974?
 * I was never able to find dates, but given that I follow that statement with another saying it moved again in 1982, it's clear they occupied the space for eight years until that move. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "one year". Hyphenate.
 * "The department had its origins in a recreation committee formed in 1943." Move the history section to the beginning, since it should be in chronological order.
 * Like a lede, summarizing a subject often involves describing the notable aspects and operation, and then delving into its history. I even do this with the two lede paragraphs of this article. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Werónika (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. All are done, unless I comment here. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Thanks for your edits. Werónika (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging prior reviewers
Hi, , , , and : the FAC coordinators requested that the previous contributors to this article's FAC now weigh in, and a lot has changed since that last review. Please let me know what you think! ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ɱ, thank you for pinging me. I see that you have removed the text from "Operations" that I was previously unhappy with. Thank you for that. I am reading through the whole article again. It will probably take me a few days to finish a review. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From "History", paragraph 1: " The library was registered with the New York state library system on September 22 of that year and an eight-member board of trustees was appointed, with a paid part-time librarian and volunteers operating the circulation desk and creating the library's card catalog (until 1955, there was only one paid librarian among a staff of volunteers)." I suggest that the latter part of the statement in parentheses should be moved out into a separate sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Damn that one's long, and I usually catch these. Maybe we should break it earlier, after "of that year", or after "appointed"? Or break at one of those and in the place you advised? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have adjusted the text and split the sentence into three. Could you check that the referencing is still correct please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * From "History", paragraph 4: "The village board then provided the library with two rooms on the second floor of its recreation building near the village downtown on Old Route 100 (then part of NY Route 100)." I am unsure what "the village downtown" means. Perhaps this is an American turn of phrase? (I am British.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "Current location", paragraph 4: subsection "The library, which was 3,200 square feet (300 m2), was too small for readers and events." How could it be too small for readers? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

 * Much better, though have only scanned yet; will revisit. I'd cut the bit about videocassettes. I would also crop out the banner from the lead image (too loud for an article about a very nice library). Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A few others disliked the videocassette bit too, so I guess I'll cut it. I just wanted to speak as much as I could about changing technologies, a big hurdle for libraries as you know. I'll remove it now, but if I found other content on changing technologies (probably with cds, dvds, or computer usage) related to the library, would you later welcome its inclusion? As for the banner file - it's actually their official logo, and I'm following things like the NYPL, BPL, and British Library in including the logo on top. It's not the prettiest logo, but it's what they use :/ Their older ones were nicer in my opinion (cf Commons cat). ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to be judicious in what you include from the sources; interesting cultural indicators vs throwaway factoids. The usual article cycle on its way to FAC is expansion and contraction. My usual yardstick for keeping content is trying to charm and interest first time visitors with possibly useful stuff. Re the banner; I know and love libraries of the region, and they are not about cheap graphics; I think crop and make a claim. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, it's just difficult to cut some things sometimes, without outside input as you all are being great at giving. As for other libraries, by collection size, Briarcliff is the smallest or second-smallest in the county (I'd add it but it's OR unfortunately). So it doesn't do much in terms of graphic designs, updating its media, or marketing as a whole. Take a look at their website, which hasn't been changed at all in style in the last 7 years (eons for the internet). I talked with the library director, who told me that File:Briarcliff Manor Public Library logo.jpg is not just a banner but their official logo, what they use on print publications and elsewhere. I know, I was surprised too. But the director's clarification should be justification enough, no? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe work around the edges. I have cut some material I felt was slightly current and from promotional material. My impression is that there is deep knowledge of a worthy topic here, but you need to step back somewhat and let others opinions and view on priorities seep in. A longer article is not a better article. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * re "later welcome its (tech, internet, ect) inclusion", yes, but as you say as part of a broader trend; far less details are required here. Ceoil (talk)


 * Sadly oppose - I think the right direction has been taken here since the last nom, but there is still too much specifics for me to be comfortable. M, think an outline for a general reader, more than a day by day historical record by somebody with a deep interest. I think this nom is salvageable if my advice is taken to heed and about 25% of the article is snipped. I'm more or less fine otherwise on prose etc, and the sourcing is fine, from spot checks. I continue my interest in New England libraries and would be glad to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input, but again I find your philosophy far different from mine, which makes this difficult. I do not believe articles should be as outline-oriented as you do, especially seeing as Wikipedia is not constrained to the limits of print publications. Many FAs and similar articles have as much detail. Nevertheless I appreciate your edits. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also strongly urge you to reconsider as the level of detail is not by definition part of the Featured article criteria. Under those criteria, I believe this article should pass. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The O was a holding position, M, rather than anything definitive. I am refering to 4. Length - "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" Take this modest edit as an example of trimming needed yet. Ceoil (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony1

 * Opening sentence: "The Briarcliff Manor Public Library is the public library serving the village of Briarcliff Manor, New York, is located on the edge of the village's Walter W. Law Memorial Park."
 * Third sentence: "It governed by a seven-member board with a liaison to the village board of trustees."
 * This is a weird proposition to hit the readers with, a few lines from the opening: "From its destruction in 1929 and over the next thirty years, the library was without a permanent location, and was moved between sites." Earthquake? "In 1959, it purchased the former Briarcliff Manor station ...". What is "it"?
 * "centrally-located", my eyes spotted as I closed the page—See MOSHYPHEN.

I don't think this is ready. Tony  (talk)  13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait a while, what you don't realize is Ceiol more or less tore this article apart, creating the errors you see above and a lot more. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm out camping this weekend, I'll be back Mondayish. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that Tony doesn't want you to just fix these specific examples, but is highlighting more general issues with random sampled text. If you dont want the text torn apart, listen to articulate concerns re triviality in the last FAC. I am deleting out mention of week day opening times, specific dates of minor events in eg 1962, recent promotional drives, and so forth. If that's what you want to preserve, and go down the blame game with, then...grand. I stand by my last statement; the article should be cut by at least 25%, and maybe then some. All of this indicates COI, which is fine if the article is neutrally written. Here its simply not. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't unique to this article. Every article I write has a lot of detail. Your writing style is simply very different, and thus I wouldn't have had you in this conversation if it wasn't required, though it shouldn't be. I understood from the past review that we simply will not agree on most points. If the FAC coordinators fail this because of your complaints, even though almost every other editor thinks it's near-perfect, then that's one more thing that's wrong with the FAC process, along with a great many I already know of. I don't think I'm going to create another FAC for a long, long while, until this process finally reforms itself away from perfectionism, prescriptivism, and in failing reviews without sufficient reviews even given the severe lack of existing reviewers, in addition to requiring past reviewers to re-review. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 13:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, I tried to help and advise. I directly edited the article, and was nice to you, all along the way. And you have thrown it back in my face, in a very guilt trippy personal way, basically I m taking my toys and screw you guys. Fine. BUT, standards at FAC have been built up over years, and what is being presented here is not good enough. I have not detailded all the issues because my style is more to roll up my sleeves and dig in, rather than whine. But they are endemic, and you are too close to the topic to realise. Who cares what days its opened, how many admin staff there are, and when they bought their computers. I *guarantee* you, far less people give a damn than you think, as highlighted in the last FAC. Also your last running sentence makes no logical sense. Wot? Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The value of the following sources should be questioned by subsequent reviewers; Ossining Daily Voice, The Journal New, River Journal, The Gazette (?), Briarcliff Daily Voice, Friends of Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Inc., Village of Briarcliff Manor, Libraries.org. Some very local, some of questionable worth. Mentioning wrt due diligence; I have a feeling that the nominator may have written some, and we are being asked to promote a circular echo chamber. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You might have thought you were being all nice and dandy, but I'll never appreciate someone 'copyediting' my article by directly going in and ripping half of it out, and creating grammatical and sourcing problems along the way. I don't understand how you write or comment at FAs with this tactic, attitude, or methods, like pulling the organization's logo just because you don't like it, or wrecking a lot of the 'understandability' of an article with your edits, as Tony experienced. I'm not going to defend local newspapers; I've never seen a policy, guideline, or even an essay that says that local papers can't be reliable sources. It stands to reason that it's the editorial process and related factors, and not the distribution of a paper that makes it become a reliable source. You really should understand this by now. And for the record, I have never written for any of the sources used here, although if you truly knew Wikipedia's rules, you'd know IT'S ALLOWED. I'm really just about done here, I'm sick of arguing with you here. I've half a mind to have a coordinator close this, I'm so sick of the massive holes in the FAC process. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm afraid that attacking reviewers is not the way to get articles promoted. Ceoil is a very experienced reviewer, and it makes much more sense to work with him. There is still quite a bit to do before we have a consensus for promotion: of the reviewers that have come this way since the FAC was transcluded, two have had reservations. And just to remind you what I said earlier, I do not consider the review that this had before transclusion to be enough for promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He's been quite unfriendly to me, and highlighted major problems I have with the FAC process, such that I no longer care about this review very much. Ceoil may have 'experience', but he clearly doesn't know many WP policies and guidelines, and instead worries about removing an organization's logo and trivial things like whether or not I briefly mention new technologies. Also don't you mean "reviews", not "review"? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your last comment, on the source review, claiming WP:SELFCITE as a first and only defence; new one to me, but we are done as far as I am concerned. I will take you immediately to FAR if this is promoted. Read the criteria, and don't try and twist in exceptional circumstances to overcome. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)\


 * If it's new to you, you should internalize it. Yes self-published sources are allowed, or published sources written by a Wikipedian, however as I said I don't use that in this article. You'd take the FA to be reviewed just because I mention that your complaints based on speculation have no basis whatsoever? You really don't know how this works, do you? Also, please stop revising your text moments after posting. Decide what you're going to say, and say it. Two or three edit conflicts for one post is ridiculous. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you completely misunderstand, completely. Anyway its moot as this is not just about you being tetchy and bullying through an FAC; there are other eyes, and unresolved requests that you address the challenge on the quality the source, one by one, a week later, is substantial grounds for oppose. This how any peer review works at even a most basic level. Personalising doesn't distract. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I have to be so frank with you, but I'm tired of clashing over these small issues, and it's very clear we'll never agree on anything. Further comments to each other won't prove beneficial. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 00:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, those sources have passed many FAs, including my own FACs. I have read and analyzed all of those sources and found their content to be of the best reliability. And unlike you thought with "first and only defence", I said that "I'm not going to defend local newspapers; I've never seen a policy, guideline, or even an essay that says that local papers can't be reliable sources. It stands to reason that it's the editorial process and related factors, and not the distribution of a paper that makes it become a reliable source. You really should understand this by now." This is so silly, as it's related to core fundamentals of Wikipedia. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have "read and analysised" the sources is now your latest stance, when the challange is SELFCITE? There is an obligation on you now, in the spirit of self disclosure to go through each and every one I challenged from the current nom to (a) identify you involvement, and notwithstanding (b) defend why it might be considered a reliable source in the first place. To wit; Ossining Daily Voice, The Journal New, River Journal, The Gazette (?), Briarcliff Daily Voice, Friends of Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Inc., Village of Briarcliff Manor, Libraries.org.

Any of your past successful FAC noms are now under a cloud, unless you respond in a meaningful way. Please stop personalising, and deal with weeks old actionable requests. This is precisely why supporting here carries a burden; weaker articles that slip through get thrown back as the new bar. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care. These news sources were deemed reliable by the reviewers of many FACs. Consensus is most often determined by precedent, and there's no better precedent than a recent FA. I don't see why I have to continue answering your absurd demands. Why question these sources and not the others? Just because you don't know of them? What do you want me to say? You keep pushing this ridiculously so again: I told you a whole too many times that I haven't written anything used as a source, even though it's allowed. As Bluerasberry found above, "self-published sources are not being used improperly here, according to the linked policy." So the FBMPL and VBM sources are fine here via that. The local news sources, as I said, why distinguish them and not others? As I said a million times, they're fine. There's no rule against local news, and they have fair and honest reporting and editing. Get off my back. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So no pretense to adherence to FAc standards, IOW. You wasted a bunch of other people's time buddy. Next time you go for peer review, read the minimum standard, rather than wade in guns blazing in, shooting all the messengers.

As clean up for this mess, I'll be seeing you at FAR. Note this this isn't because I am upset by your gross representations of me, but because, as I said earlier "weaker articles that slip through get thrown back as the new bar", and I actually give a damn. Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've had many FAC nominations so I know how this works, I'm just tired of you pretending to follow standards but instead really just griefing me with ridiculous accusation after accusation, over and over here. Peer Review is even more of a ghost town than FAC, I've never received solid input there. Seems the only person's time I'm wasting is yours, as you're the only real oppose vote here, and you're adamant about letting it fail or nominating it to be demoted if it passes, i.e. making it fail either way. Just leave this alone already, WP:DROPTHESTICK, gosh. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And you didn't even try to reply to my comments about the sources, instead just insulting me more and telling me you'll never get off my case because I'm not being super courteous to you and agreeing with your suggestions. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Accusations to you are minimum standards to me. I stand by my original oppose on grounds of an article buffed up by triviality. The recent argument about COI is just reinforcement of earlier doubts. Ceoil (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "The recent argument" being the one I completely rebuked and that you have to take AGF without stalking or doxxing me, or forcing me to reveal my identity? Keep your oppose, it's one irrational one among many decent reviews. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * doxxing? forcing me to reveal my identity? Wot, why even bring fantastical associations into here? Cheap attempts at poisoning the well. That's actually pathetic. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well how else could you answer "The recent argument about COI is just reinforcement of earlier doubts."? Based on that, you clearly weren't satisfied by my repeated statements that I haven't written anything, I have no COI... Without you AGF, how else could I prove it besides a forced proof of identity? Anyway, this conversation has digressed way too far. Are you at all ready to drop it? This is still going nowhere. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: "This is going nowhere" pretty much sums this up for me. We have an oppose and a comment from Tony1 that this isn't ready. Despite the support that the review got before it was transcluded onto the FAC page, I don't think we have a consensus to promote, and I don't think we are likely to get one. In future, I would be more inclined to archive a case like this, which was transcluded late, as I don't think it has really helped the article. Leaving this open looks like it would only descend into argument, which won't help anyone. This can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period, and I would recommend getting a few fresh eyes on it. I am fully expecting some complaints about archiving this one, but I think we have already given this FAC more leeway than normal. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll complain. Tony's oppose was literally only due to Ceoil's edits which made the whole article very confusing, and Ceoil's oppose was irrational and part of his griefing efforts against me, as it spread to the Briarcliff Manor article and talk pages. Neither of those opposes should be counted under any fair circumstance, so I am denouncing the FAC process for this as well as all of my other thousand issues with the process, none of which you all recognized or tried to fix when I raised the issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.