Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Briarcliff Manor, New York/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Briarcliff Manor, New York

[edit]

Briarcliff Manor, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this article. The first one was closed solely because not enough reviewers contributed. For evidence of that, please visit /archive1. Please comment and review, I could use as many people, as many reviews, and as much assistance as I can get.

Briarcliff Manor is a small village in the New York suburbs. It has plenty of interesting history and quite a few notable residents. The village also has a number of parks and historic buildings.

After I saw this article a few months back, I realized that it needed quite a bit of work. I created a user sandbox page and wrote a draft, which was peer reviewed by three users. I later published the article on the mainspace and submitted it as a Good Article candidate, which it passed. I'd hope you can help make the article even better - I believe there's always room for improvement.--ɱ (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by URDNEXT

[edit]

Support as per comments below. URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What bugs me abound the lead and infobox, is the lack of refs throughout them. When you wanna make it to FA, AFAIK, you need reliable sources to back every statement you make, specially in the lead.
According to a number or rules including WP:WHYCITE, information shouldn't be cited in the lead and infobox, especially if it's repeated in the sections below with reliable sources, which it is in every case here.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. URDNEXT (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Names
[edit]
  • I can't understand the first sentence.
It's saying that Briarcliff is a suburban village in Westchester County, NY and is less than 30 miles north of NYC. Can you be more specific what your issue is with the sentence?--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says: "Briarcliff Manor's original settlement was known as Whitson's Corners". I don't get the original settlement thing? What is it? I think you should rephrase that, ɱ URDNEXT (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I reword that as "Briarcliff Manor's settlement was originally known as...", that would be okay?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word settlement is a bit, I don't know... Weird. I think if you used an alternative it would be easier to understand. URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the area may have had other names when it was native American land or when there were a few farms in the area, but the first proper settlement was named Whitson's Corners. I think it's alright.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The neighboring community of Scarborough was known as Weskora until renamed in 1864." How about Weskora "until" it was renamed in 1864?
So, you want to add in "it was"? That's fine with me, although it's unnecessary wording.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It makes the prose flow better. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Miniapolis suggested it too, and it's minor.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon afterward, that sign was thrown into the Hudson River and replaced with the original Scarborough sign" Is there a reason for this to happen? I think it would be a good thing to cover.
Yeah, it's generally attributed to the fact that Scarborough residents generally wanted to feel less like they were like just another part of Briarcliff; they like to be identified as residents of Scarborough.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Put this in the article and my issue is solved. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it's not very factual and not very well supported by reliable sources. I'll see what I can put in.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done.--ɱ (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the family home in Ireland" You mean "his" family home?
That should make it more clear; done.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Progressive era to present day
[edit]
  • {{He bought his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890,[1] and rapidly added to his property}} I can't understand this sentence. If these were his first acres, how did he already have property there?
He didn't already have property there, the 236 acres were his first. Perhaps the wording suggests that he bought land before that? It's unlikely I can make it any clearer.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wording conflict in this sentence. You said something then you contradicted it. You started saying he bought his first acres, which added to his property. Try this:
"He purchased his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890, and then quickly expanded his property..." URDNEXT (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The part about rapidly adding relates to the 40 parcels, not the 236 acres, but I see how you're confused. Should I reword it to be more clear?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try something.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Will be back for more! URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your comments so far. Thanks for helping out.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "The Briarcliff Manor Police Department and the volunteer Briarcliff Manor Fire Department are stationed at the Briarcliff Manor Village Hall" is not the best introduction to Infrastructure. Perhabs you could start the section with, "Briacliff Manor has a large infrastructure with several..." Giving this introduction sets up the scene for the readers as the current one kinda comes out of nowhere.
I don't know if every paragraph needs some sort of guidebook-type introduction. It really wouldn't add anything here, doesn't seem very professional, and this is all especially true for such a short section. Also, Briarcliff Manor doesn't have a large infrastructure, because it's a small village.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thirty vehicles and employs twenty-nine men" Again, nothing totally wrong with this, just that the use of "men" could be replaced with "people" or "workers".
done.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the National Bridge Inventory, Briarcliff Manor has 15 bridges, with estimated daily traffic at 204,000 vehicles" You should change "at" to "of".
Well, then I'd have to word it as "15 bridges, which have an estimated daily traffic volume of 204,000 vehicles", which is much more lengthy. The current text conveys the same information more concisely.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "existing road is Washburn Road, on which is the 1767 Century Homestead" Didn't understand this at all.
Miniapolis reworded a lot for conciseness, and perhaps she made this one a bit too concise. The oldest road in the village is Washburn Rd., and on it is the house named Century Homestead, which I talk about earlier in the article's text. I just changed the wording a bit, is that good?--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Also, just a reminder of the Sleeping Dogs thing, in case you forgot. I'll be making more comments here as I read the article more, though I'm afraid the article is already in such good shape that any criticism would be nitpicking. @Ɱ URDNEXT (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Likely won't be editing at all today, gotta restrict myself in order to actually get real-life things done...--ɱ (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ I hope that didn't come off like blackmail. I meant to say that I'll be making comments as I find errors and things that could be improved in the article, not that I'll only make comments if you help me. Just saying this in case my previous comment came off wrong. URDNEXT (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you well enough by now to know that. You've always been very helpful and friendly.--ɱ (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ Thanks! I'm glad I'm able to say the same about you. :) URDNEXT (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second paragraph of historic (notable residents) is WAY too long. Maybe you should divide it into two paragraphs.
done.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, @Ɱ? URDNEXT (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Miniapolis

[edit]

My review focuses primarily on the prose.

I know, but there's nothing I feel comfortable with giving its own article. Do you have any thoughts?--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might move some content into Briarcliff Manor-related articles, since this article (an overview) is quite long. Miniapolis 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done that with the history section, although I don't think any other sections are long enough or would be independently notable enough to stand on their own. But please, be bold and try something, unless you'd like to suggest something.--ɱ (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As well, longer articles have passed as FAs, as is indicated here: Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length.--ɱ (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is your nomination; my job here is to review the article and suggest improvements ("Length" is FA criterion #4). Miniapolis 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the list, but my job is to check compliance with policy, applicable guidelines and the MOS. "Longer" doesn't equal "better". Miniapolis 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, although I don't easily have a solution to this problem. Can you suggest something and I'll try to work from there? As well, criterion 4 is sufficiently vague to allow articles like Barack Obama to reach FA. It shouldn't restrict Briarcliff Manor from reaching it. On the other hand, I'd like to make the article shorter.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to note is that according to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, this article would be the 206th FA by prose size if passed. That makes it much smaller than many FAs that have already passed.--ɱ (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I think "less than 30 miles (48 km) north of New York City" is too vague; exact mileage (with conversion to km) is better.
Well, for a village that's 6.7 sq. mi., I'm not sure how you can be more precise than <30 mi.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Geographically" is implied by "shared" (no comma needed before). " ... ; it is served" is less choppy as ", and is served" (much as I love semicolons to tie short sentences :-)).

I think it is good to clarify 'geographically', especially when using a term like 'shared' that often conveys a more literal sense. I'll replace the semicolon there.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Names": "John H. Whitson's house the Crossways" needs commas after "house" and "Crossways". " ... until [it was] renamed ..." needs fixing.
Done.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I agree with the closer of the first archive that this article needs a formal peer review; IMO, it does not meet FA criteria 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length appropriate to the topic). Although the nominator and I seem to disagree on whether the article is too long, a related issue is its vaguely promotional tone (partly due, perhaps, to the large number of sources published—or commissioned—by the village). A source review is also needed. There is a numbing amount of detail in several sections, particularly "Neighborhoods", "Parks and recreation" and "Notable people", and my comments were becoming more appropriate for a PR than for an FAC (which is less about article improvement than about evaluating whether an article meets the FACR). Miniapolis 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, for such a long article, I'd assume that there would be minor problems that we'd have to dig to find. I have already had a number of people review it and OK it. A peer review wouldn't give me that much more. You should read my further comments to Ian Rose (here), who agreed with me and was willing to allow me to immediately reopen the FA review. With regard to neutrality, I would like you to cite examples. I believe that all facts are neutral, factual, and encyclopedic. The village has not published or commissioned many of my sources; quite a number of them come from the independent Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, which is a professional and respected organization for research. With regard to a "numbing amount of detail", this is an online encyclopedia. There is no limit on the amount of detail we can go into. The only real issue with great detail is it increases page size, which can be fixed other ways. Readers and Wikipedians generally want the most detail possible in such specific articles.--ɱ (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By far my largest source was The Changing Landscape, an independently-published and independently-written 300-page volume detailing village history and other aspects. It makes no attempts to be promotional.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis: As well, if you read Ian Rose's talk page, it better details that he suggested a peer review not based on the article's quality, but based on the fact that it might garner the attention of more editors. He didn't fail it for any lack of quality, merely for only one review in the month-long period, and no responses for a week after that.--ɱ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are based on the article, which is little changed (except for some apparent reverts) from when I copyedited it at your request as a userspace draft several months ago. Pinging individuals to look over an article (what you seem to consider "peer review") is very different from a formal process by disinterested editors. Due to the recent influx of paid editors on WP attempting to "spin" articles for clients, I'm sensitive to POV. I'm requesting a source review due to possible plagiarism issues, since I found verbatim copy with inadequate attribution (with a footnote, but without quotation marks) accidentally while checking a source during the copyedit. A formal peer review would address issues such as these, but I see haste in trying to get this article to FA. Miniapolis 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're overstating that paraphrasing issue, and that was an odd case very early on in this article's development. I'm surprised you don't notice more changes; I've rewritten entire sections, added many images and quite a lot of content, and done quite a bit of formatting since you last reviewed it. I would say it has dramatically changed since you last reviewed it. I am very familiar with the PR process, and I should let you know that of the many that have reviewed the article and draft, none of them had any relation to the content. Most of them made a note to tell me that they've never heard of, or have never lived remotely close to the place. All of my reviewers have been more than critical as well, and none have found this 'vague promotionalism' that you speak of.--ɱ (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisPond

[edit]

Support. I've previously reviewed a draft of this article, and provided ɱ with some comments to improve it. That said, I agree that the article is quite long. I don't believe that it's too long to qualify as a featured article, and I have no readily apparent solutions to shortening it, but would certainly not be opposed to be the article being a bit shorter if other editors have suggestions to make it so. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • You've still got a few images fixed at small sizes - this is not a good idea for accessibility reasons
From my understanding, most images should be at the default size, although "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller" (From WP:MOS).--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The provision for smaller images applies in circumstances like flag icons, not typically actual images used in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rule doesn't indicate that, meaning I should be able to use it to say that the David Ogilby photo shouldn't have to be 220px. There's no good reason for it to be either, it's not really important enough to be larger, looks bad and worsens the formatting when it's larger, and readers won't care to see a larger image of his portrait, rather than with images of places and landscapes, where larger sizes always help. The other small photos have similar qualities so they work better smaller.--ɱ (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, two of the smaller images are across from the infobox, so I didn't want the text in between to be squeezed even more tightly by larger images.--ɱ (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:BriarcliffRose.jpg needs to explicitly identify the copyright holder
Is that absolutely a necessity? Can't any nonfree images be uploaded which have no known copyright holder? There's almost no information on this graphic, except that the village Garden Club uses the same image, and it's been used in other media; there are a couple of framed, hand-drawn copies at the Historical Society and other residents' houses.--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we know this is an official and current logo if there's no information about it? What steps have you taken to try to identify the copyright status of the work? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's written about in a few sources (village gov. publications and BMSHS history books) as the village logo, and it's the only artwork of the Briarcliff Rose that's ever been published or circulated, so I can be certain that it hasn't been replaced by another artist's impression of the rose. I have asked the Historical Society about it, and they've told me that they don't know anything about the original author. I now feel the incentive to ask the village government and perhaps one of the more informed residents about it...--ɱ (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JohnDavidOgilby.jpg: archival images may not have been formally published - was this one before 1923?
Commons admin Ellin Beltz marked it as PD-old because it's "clearly published and dates circa 1860". Is that sufficient?--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - it's clearly published now, but the tag you're using specifies that it was published before 1923. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll change it back to the most applicable license, what I should have used before although the template didn't exist yet.--ɱ (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rcsprinter123 has been making these maps for a large number of municipalities. I'm not sure what data he's using. I'll ask him on his talk page, unless he answers here first.--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Data for this map can be found here. Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tezero

[edit]

Will do. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start, though, Miniapolis and ɱ, what's this about plagiarism? And what should I be looking out for specifically? Tezero (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. The relevant plagiarism discussion is now at User talk:Ɱ/Archive 2#Briarcliff Manor article. I kept the wording of some text, as I couldn't find a better or more concise way of putting it, being more technical than descriptive. That text has since been reworded and updated due to more current events, and was moved to the article History of Briarcliff Manor some time ago.--ɱ (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll keep an eye out for any more preserved wording I find, but because of the general atmosphere of honesty I won't waste too much time seeking it out. Tezero (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some inconsistency in the italicization of "Briarcliff Daily Voice" in the sources.
done.--ɱ (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer marking the PDFs with |format=PDF in the references.
Will do.--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dawson, Nick (August 24, 2009). "Hudson Valley Movies". NBC Universal. Retrieved May 10, 2014." - Why not include "Focus Features" as the "work" or whatever? That's done elsewhere, such as in Nationalbridges/National Bridge Inventory.
done.--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society 2012 Harvest Wine Dinner. Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 2012." - Wait, you're citing a... dinner? Is there any way to find something someone could still access? This is like citing a link you know is dead and will never come back online.
I did use 'cite book'; this was actually the dinner journal for the evening, which had bios on the honored guests, including Mayor Vescio. It is a village historical society publication, but I'll attempt to find a better source still...--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, wasn't as hard as I thought it would be.--ɱ (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that always supposed to be that way? I thought as long as I was consistent in either linking or not linking, it would be OK.--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's being consistent in either linking every instance or linking only the first instance, though tell me if you find any FAs that have passed with no publisher/work links. Tezero (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll do it. Shouldn't be too hard...--ɱ (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks:
  • 174: "for more than 30 years" - the source says "almost 30 years". We don't know how "almost" that is, and maybe he's moved now, so I'd recommend changing this to something like "Robert Klein, a comedian, singer and actor, had been living in Briarcliff Manor for almost 30 years as of 2013."
Huh, not sure why I put 'more than', fixed.--ɱ (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42: Fine, but why is the African-American population increase relevant? And technically I can't find the info about "2.1 percent" in source 41, presumably used to corroborate that as 42 doesn't say it - do you have a page number or anything?
Well, in a historical demographics section it has relevance, and it's some of the only demographics change information that I've been able to find. And in a village so predominantly white, large increases in other populations certainly is noteworthy. On page 27 of ref 41, there's a demographics chart that gives the details for the described demographics changes.--ɱ (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why only black, though? Is that the only other race that's covered? Tezero (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also covers the previous sentence about caucasians. Other than those two races, none others have had very significant changes worth mentioning.--ɱ (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 153: good
  • 28: good; "operates the Long Hill Road water treatment plant" is almost too close but I'll give that a pass

Tezero (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ɱ (talk · contribs), ping me when you've done the linking thing. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thank you for the reminder, I knew there was more I was planning to do and forgot...--ɱ (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 'work' and 'publisher' fields linked where applicable. I'll add that format=pdf thing next.--ɱ (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero: Alright, I've added the PDF thing to all PDFs and I also (while I was at it) checked over all the links for dead ones, all fixed now.--ɱ (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bluerasberry

[edit]

This article could be promoted to featured article status now. I recommend that this promotion be done after the concerns expressed by others have been addressed. I am anticipating that no great obstacle to passing this article will be identified.

In my review, I have not verified that the information presented comes from the sources cited because I am assuming good faith that it does. I also did not consider what concepts are not presented in the article, beyond checking to see whether the expected sections were in place.

Here are some problem points. As I said, none of these are so serious as to prevent the promotion of this article to FA status.

  1. The citation style used is neat looking but I do not understand it. On the article talk page I might like to see a 1-2 sentence explanation or naming of the citation conventions applied here.
Thank you so much for your approval and review, as well as the complements provided. I'll start addressing your points. For this above concern, are you referring to Template:Rp, which I use inline with some citations? I'll put a notice about that on the article talk page, unless there's something else/more that you're referring to.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Someone made a decision not to list subsections in the table of contents. This is okay, but it is not obvious to me why this unorthodox decision was made. Perhaps note on the talk page.
I did that because otherwise the TOC would be abnormally large. The TOC limit template is designed to reduce the TOC on long/many-headed articles like this. I can add a talk page note.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Someone named "James Stillman" is mentioned. Mostly likely because of time and financial situation, this is James Stillman, but could be his son James A. Stillman, or less likely could be another James Stillman. There are no wikilinks to this person because I see there is lack of source information to make the connection. I wish that the most likely candidate could be noted at least in a footnote or some appropriate way.
A footnote would be good, I'll try that momentarily.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Someone made the editorial decision to not have red links in the articles for items which could have their own article. I assume this is because of the low likelihood of anyone making articles from the red links. Articles that I might have expected to see redlinked are Trump National Golf Club, Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Chilmark, Thomas Macy, and some others. It just seemed to me that these concepts were likely to be notable by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but it is entirely fine to keep them without links.
I can tell you for sure that if Trump, Chilmark, or the library had articles, they would be stubs. Trump is only a few years old and there's still little valuable information about the place or its predecessor clubs. Chilmark is a small residential neighborhood that up until ~50 years ago was just someone's private property. And as for the library, I was able to put nearly all notable information about it directly into this article, and there's not much here. Thomas Macy is someone I haven't researched or even read too much about, so I'm not sure whether he meets notability criteria. For all names and places that I thought might be typically red-linked, I actually decided to make articles for them instead (see Elliott Fitch Shepard and Briarcliff Lodge, among others).--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is a 2007 document published by the village government itself which could be considered to be a self-published source. Some bold statements are backed to this source which would be better backed by a third-party source, because the information presented is starting to cross the line from simple facts to editorial judgement to present information to create an impression. See Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Economy for example of how this source is used; a certain vision of the economy is described with bias to how a local government would like to be seen. Because I think the information in this document is likely the only published perspective of the kind of information it presents, I think it can be used as a source in the way that it is being used, but I do want to note the bias here. It is entirely fine for an article about a city of this size.
Well, I would usually put self-published sources as ones made by a person or company used in that entity's Wikipedia article. For municipalities, ownership is really by the United States. There are state and local governments, as well as chambers of commerce and other entities, but I wouldn't call a NYC government publication a self-published source if it was used in the article New York City, I would only call it self-published if it was used on the article Government of New York City. Regardless, if you point out some bold statements supported by it, I can probably find other sources for it. Also, I should note that the Comprehensive Plan isn't any sort of press release or item for the masses; it's a report mandated by the state government; a report on the services and utilities of the municipality, as well as upgrade plans.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do not follow the citation style used in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Parks_and_recreation. I would like to see {{fact}} tags used for statements in bullets which are not backed with any citation. Since practically all of the rest of the article is backed with good citations, I would like to see this section similarly covered.
Well, all of the information here is cited, to ref 78. I put an inline citation at the sentence before the list. That method is commonly used in other articles.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do not understand the caucus described in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Government. What is decided in this event?
I state that it's a "forum to determine officeholders". The caucus determines the (usually only) nominees for trustees and mayors.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some place called the William Kingsland mansion is mentioned with no context. There should be some explanation of this place somewhere.
I mention the two notable schools that occupied it; ref 5 says it was on Route 9 in Scarborough and burned down in 1982. Should I note all of this in another explanatory note?--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some strengths of this article:

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, not overly focused on any points, and would not leave anything to be desired by a reader without specific expectations. I would expect people with expectations are likely to be impressed by this, but I am familiar with the subject matter covered as this is all new to me.
  2. I am impressed with the range of sources cited for the houses of worship section in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Arts_and_culture. I would have expected this to come from a list, but different sources have been found for most of the places presented.
  3. I am impressed with the curation of Category:Briarcliff Manor, New York.
  4. I like that the history presented in this article is complemented by History of Briarcliff Manor.
  5. The selection of photos used is fantastic

Explore Briarcliff Manor: A driving tour must be a detailed book. I am surprised it was written at all.

Thanks for all the time and thought put into this. Briarcliff Manor is one of the most covered places on Wikipedia for sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, thank you for the further comments and praise. I'm very glad for such good approval of my work.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added notes to the article's talk page; let me know what you think.--ɱ (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask, for anyone coming across this, should I make any changes to any of the images I've created? I spent countless hours on File:BriarcliffManorCompilation.png and File:BriarcliffMapFinal2.png, although there should be room for improvement and I can easily alter either of them. Any ideas?

I'm actually rather proud of the map, I spent far too long piecing it together on Gimp; totally the wrong software for map-making. But it can definitely be improved.--ɱ (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ I think they're all perfect the way they are. URDNEXT (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't help me! Though, thanks, I really appreciate it.--ɱ (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please check for duplicated links; there are several. This script is useful User:Ucucha/duplinks. Graham Colm (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked for duplicated links, and I can tell you that any cases of duplicated links are beneficial to the reader, primarily due to an earlier linkage appearing much farther up in the article's text, usually in a less significant place. The duplicated links guideline allows for that exception, as well as that for infoboxes, images, and the lead paragraph.--ɱ (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can see three links to Scarborough Historic District on a single screen shot. The two links in the text are only 18 or so lines apart. Graham Colm (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC
You're right on that account, even though one of the three is an image caption. I'll remove the link in the Houses of Worship section.--ɱ (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York/archive2&oldid=1136098571"