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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
History
Early 1900s
There should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement.
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)reply
numerous cases of no non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
History
Early 1900s
There should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement.
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)reply
numerous cases of no non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply