Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ɱ in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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.
Organization
edit- This section has no wikilinks
- The list should be transformed into a sentence.
History
editEarly 1900s
edit- There should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement.
- The sentence "Also during the war, in 1944..." should go before "In May 1946..."
- Per MOS, 5000 should be 5,000 and 6000 to 6,000.
Late 1900s
edit- "recent" - no recent
- wikilink "two-way radios"
Apparatus
edit- "weapons-of-mass destruction trailer" what exactly is this?
Other
edit- Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images.
- The image captions should be treated like a sentence, with a period.
- numerous cases of no non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement.
Total lack of secondary sources
editThere 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)
- 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)