Talk:Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

GA Review

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 -   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)

deprecated cs1 parameter |coauthors=

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:

1. the title: Municipal Services & Financial Overview: Town and Village of Ossining, NY
2. the date: April 2012
3. for whom it as prepared: Town and Village of Ossining, NY
4. 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)

GA Reassessment

Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Article tagged for notability. Further action may be taken on that point, but GA concerns resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My biggest qualm is with GA point 3b: this page is full of unnecessary detail. Ɱ (talk · contribs), the article's main contributor, appears to have had worked for Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society at the time, which might explain why this page is full of details only a local would find useful. Also, Abductive (talk · contribs) had raised questions about whether this GA was done properly in the first place, and whether it is properly covered by secondary sources, so throw point 2b in there.

This article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Briarcliff Manor, and I'm suspicious of a few of those articles, but let's start with this one. Apocheir (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I could try to take a stab at this, but Apocheir, are there any specific examples of passages you think are too detailed? I see a few examples, like this, but wanted to ask if you had other examples in mind.

• 1951 was the 50th anniversary of the fire department, and so the village held a week-long celebration beginning on July 1, 1950, with a morning service at the Briarcliff Congregational Church, a band concert at Law Park, and a Fourth of July parade with 5,500 spectators, with a march led by Fred Messinger, followed by eight ex-chiefs. The parade included Scarborough's first fire engine (the red hand-pumped 1901 truck), many bands, and twelve fire departments from Westchester County municipalities. The ex-chief's dinner that evening drew 85 guests. In that year, it was noted that there were not yet any resident deaths from fires within village boundaries. - Honestly, I would have condensed this to one or two sentences.
• A year later, one of the most notable fires in the village happened at about 10 pm on January 22, 1982, in the village central business district. The fire began in the basement of Briarcliff Stationers and destroyed the Briarcliff Country Store, Briar Rose, and the Shoe Bazaar. More than a hundred Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville, and Ossining firefighters assisted to control the fire, which continued to burn at heights of 30–40 feet at midnight, but was under control by 1:30 am. Damage was estimated at $500,000 ($1,516,200 today[9]). - Again, this could be one sentence.

If your main concern is specifically with over-detail, I could try to remedy this. However, if sourcing is the other major issue, it would be much harder for me to find sources for this. Ɱ, who presumably added the main source for this article (A Century of Volunteer Service: Briarcliff Manor Fire Department 1901–2001. Briarcliff Manor Fire Department. 2001.), has unfortunately retired, and he probably has access to news sources that I don't. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've finished cutting the unnecessary detail. Anyone is free to restore details that they think are relevant, or to make further cuts. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it really encyclopedic to have a list of retired apparatus? How far back do you go with such things for completeness? Is it really encyclcopedic to inform the reader about equipment that isn't used anymore? I work with governments, and some cities tend to burn through a lot of equipment. I can only imagine if we were to keep a list like this for the police department, listing every Crown Vic they ever had 10 years ago. I will also note that the source for the current apparatus does not support the various Tahoes, Expedition, or utility truck. Hog Farm _Talk 15:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the "Retired apparatus" section and integrated the prose into the "history" section. I'm not even sure what to do with the current apparatus that's not backed up by this source, since I doubt whether these pickup trucks or the utility truck even count as firefighting apparatus. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apocheir, do you have any other concerns besides the sourcing? I see you pinged Abductive to this reassessment - I'll try to fix anything that comes up to the best of my ability. However, if the fire department indeed is not notable due to a lack of secondary sources (as was alluded to in the original GAN), a merge discussion might be merited. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I think the sourcing is the most important issue. If it's going to be merged, we're going to need to trim a lot more than if it remains a stand-alone article!

That said, let me respond to your earlier question. I agree with Hog Farm about the chief and assistant chief's vehicles, and I also question whether we need to state every single vehicle purchase that this fire department made, and how much it cost. It seems like every run-of-the-mill transaction the department made is mentioned. I'm suspicious of the second paragraph of the lede, outlining what seems to be an arbitrary collection of mergers and moves. In general there's a bunch of stuff that's the same as any other fire department in the US. Every fire department in 2024 uses radios, for instance. On the other hand, I wonder if the material on the 2018 embezzlement and the 2021 law giving them a carve-out could be expanded. Apocheir (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have trimmed down some of the info about the vehicular purchases (in particular, removing the cost). I've also added some more details about the embezzlement. There really isn't much to add about the 2021 legislation, though.

In regards to the second paragraph, it summarizes the history section. I'd argue that the mergers and moves are one of the few notable aspects of the history section that will remain if one takes out the info about the vehicular purchases. If the mergers and moves are removed from the article as well, I do not think the article will meet WP:GACR criterion 3a (i.e. the coverage would no longer be broad). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, Apocheir, and Hog Farm: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There are still notability questions that haven't been addressed. Each point of WP:SIRS is in question for most of these sources, as well as WP:AUD. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the sources that aren't available online, but certainly not to the history of the fire department written by the fire department itself. Apocheir (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think most of my concerns have been addressed. While the unsupported ancillary vehicles have been removed from the table, they are still referred-to in text in the sentence The Briarcliff Manor Fire Department has one tower ladder, three class-A pumpers, one heavy rescue vehicle, two ambulances, three chief's cars, a utility truck, and an antique engine. The department also has a trailer for safety demonstrations with a source that does not mention the chief's cars, the utility truck, or the trailer. Additionally, I don't see how it's possibly a due detail to reference the $7,000 trade-in value on the ambulance, especially when it can apparently only be cited to the board minutes that approved it. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I think notability might be an even greater problem. I was really hoping that I would be able to add reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT, but most of the mentions of the fire department that I could find on ProQuest, newspapers.com, and fultonhistory.com are passing mentions. Even The Journal News, which serves this region, doesn't talk about this much. Like I said, Ɱ, the main contributor, probably has access to news sources that I don't; he hasn't edited in months, though. It is a shame, as I was really hoping to save this article by replacing many of the instances of the fire-department history source. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius and Apocheir: if notability is a problem, does one of you want to take this to AfD? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Have we hit all the points of WP:BEFORE? Someone might want to fill out {{Source assess table}} or {{ORGCRIT assess table}} as well. We should have a pretty well-developed case before bringing a good-rated article to AfD. Apocheir (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.