Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Briarcliff Manor Public Library/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2016 [1].

Briarcliff Manor Public Library

[edit]
Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been writing articles about Briarcliff Manor, New York, with the ultimate goal of every article reaching the highest status. I wrote most of this over the course of a week and had it reach GA soon after. I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: is it fixed properly now? Thanks--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better. I would suggest though using {{Non-free fair use in}} instead of the historic-images tag - it's usually applied to images that are themselves of historic significance (eg. File:TrangBang.jpg) rather than just those that depict historic things. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: That makes sense, done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", paragraph 1: "World War I delayed the progress of the library; in 1921 it was revived, largely due to the efforts of Mrs. Alfred G. Bookwalter; at the time, the Library Board consisted entirely of women." I appreciate the desire to avoid very short sentences, but the double semi-colon is not elegant. Is there a better way to phrase this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the text slightly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", paragraph 4: " In 1959, the library received its absolute charter." What is an "absolute charter"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", last paragraph: "The library, which had 3,200 square feet (300 m2), had no wireless capacity and poor shelving and lighting, among other problems." It is unclear as to when these problems were highlighted. Given that the subsequent sentence refers to 1980, I infer that the statement applies to 1980 or earlier. If this is the implication, it is unsurprising that the library had no wireless capacity—or indeed internet access at all! Moreover, wireless capacity is not mentioned at all later in the paragraph. (Wi-Fi is mentioned in the subsequent section.) "Among other problems" is somewhat vague. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", last paragraph: "The community center has been in development since as late as 2013." Why "as late as 2013" rather than "since 2013"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", last paragraph: "an estimated completion date of 2016 and cost of $1,800,000." The reference is from October 2015. Has the community center been completed? If not, is there a more precise estimate for completion date? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Operations": "As of 2014, the Briarcliff Manor Public Library is open seven days per week, except in August when it is closed each Sunday." Is there a more up-to-date source for opening hours? Most readers won't want to know the opening hours from two years ago. Why is/was it closed on Sundays in August? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Axl:, thanks for your comments! I fixed the first issue. An absolute charter is a New York State thing; libraries, museums, historical societies, and even public tv & radio stations are registered as educational organizations with NYSED and charters bring all sorts of benefits related to becoming an "official" educational organization. I'm going to look into incorporating this as a note, as it's not really explained elsewhere on Wikipedia. The problems sentence was cited to a 2005 article, which makes sense that no wireless in the late 90s/early 2000s would be an issue, however the library's small size and poor shelving and lights would have likely been a problem for the last 20 or 30 years. I didn't really find it necessary to associate a date then, as long as the reader understands these issues existed prior to the library's expansion. What do you think? I could state "In 2005, it was noted that....", or "In 2005, The New York Times noted that..." The 'among other problems' phrase is vague, however I didn't want to list all the minor problems on the NYT article, and still wanted to express there were more problems than just size, wireless, shelves, and lights; the reader could view the reference to read more?
I wanted to express when the community center was being developed, and the earliest source I found was from 2013, although there's a good possibility it was in development before then, ergo as late as 2013.
There haven't been any more recent online publications about the community center's completion date. I'm inquiring about print resources.
The library schedule hasn't changed (nor has the ref); I'll update to 'as of 2016'. It always closes on Sundays in August for special events to be run, as can be seen here! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be clarification of the meaning of "absolute charter", even if this is just a link to another article or a dictionary definition. Incorporation as a note sounds fine.
@Axl: I added a note about provisional and absolute charters. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph about the problems needs to be rewritten. If the formal assessment was undertaken in 2005, that assessment needs to be placed in chronological seqeuence within the paragraph. If, in your opinion, the "other problems" are too trivial to be described in the article, then don't even mention them at all. If you aren't going to do this, I could do it.
It is in chronological order, seeing as the 2005 source was describing problems in the location for its early history (1959-1980). The mezzanine added in 1980 gave it more shelf space, one of the problems listed. I disagree that "other problems" should be removed. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dates of beginning and completion of the community center need to be included—this article is supposed to be reaching FA standard.
Generally it would be good, however you know that nothing in Wikipedia should be unverifiable. The only information I can find about beginning and completion is not verifiable. The information about its planning should be sufficient, and with the actual opening in a week or two, it'll be more complete without a doubt. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The library schedule hasn't changed (nor has the ref); I'll update to 'as of 2016'." Why didn't you do it? I have fixed the problem with a reference to the current opening hours. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must have forgotten. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have an ongoing disagreement about the presence of "other problems". You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so. Of course everything should be verifiable, but this does not excuse the absence of relevant information when an article is striving for FA standard. Moreover, the presence of vague or confusing statements is not acceptable.
I realise that Ɱ has worked hard to bring the article to its current state – thank you for improving the article. Unfortunately I don't think that it reaches FA standard yet. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so." That statement is unfair, as not only do I acknowledge by stating that the statements are in chronological order, but I won't take up your offer to change it if I don't think it needs changing... Nor should a minor issue like this be an obstacle for FA, nor a sole reason for an oppose vote. Thank you for your input. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Axl: Upon further review, I have edited that sentence, and as well added the (finally published) completion date of the community center. I hope this fulfills your review responses? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these improvements to the article. However it remains unclear as to when "no wireless capacity" was identified as a problem (and by extension, "poor shelving and lighting"). The start of development of the community center remains vague. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you write historical articles, but there's always information that can't be known or can't be cited. Sometimes it's merely specifics, like the dates you desire. In this case, I don't think any one party could reliably state when wireless, shelving, and lighting became a prominent issue, nor the exact date when planning for the community center began. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't write historical articles (I have reviewed one GA candidate historical article in the past) but I think that describing this article as a "historical article" is stretching the definition. Anyway, I know that you have rigorously searched for sources so I accept that there is information that cannot be found. According to the FA criteria, the article should be "well-written" and "comprehensive". The absence of any possible source to provide missing information is not a reason to bypass the "comprehensive" requirement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Axl: I appreciate your honesty and recognition. I was indicating that the historical section is similar to historical articles, and likewise will always have absences in information. Those types of articles are my preference and what I usually end up writing about, which influenced me to write this article (I've never written one on a library before). My previous FACs allowed for even greater truths to be left unknown; many elements of history can never be known for sure or will never be known for sure, as opposed to topics like mathematics or science. FA criteria on comprehension recognizes this, that the article must neglect "no major facts or details". I don't believe the dates you request are among major facts about the library. Regardless, I'll restate that these issues aren't well defined that I doubt anyone even then could absolutely state when those issues became a problem or when the community center plans were 'officially' started. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sainsf

[edit]

This look pretty good to go. Just a few ideas:

  • I wonder if the year it was founded should be mentioned in the first few lines of the lead rather than the 2nd para?
The second lead paragraph has a summary of the entire history, including all the most important dates. In my opinion, a mention in the first lead paragraph would be more disjointed here. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as you think proper. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delayed the progress of the library, however progress resumed I guess this should be delayed the progress of the library; however, progress resumed
I was using the word as a synonym of 'though', which I think I'll now use instead. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Mrs. Alfred G. Bookwalter on the staff? What was her position?
The following clause answers that question, though I'm not sure if it's clear enough. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I don't think we need a reword. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On September 22, 1921, the library was registered with the New York State library system, and on March 8–13 of that year, the Briarcliff Free Library was officially opened. Are we going back in time, or is it March 1922?
I double-checked with the source, apparently March comes before September! My mistake. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 1939, the library received recently an efficiency rating Why is there a "recently" here?
Fixed. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • its expenditures for 1951 were $1875.86 I think this is the only figure for which you don't add its modern value.
Good catch. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabeth Kelly was the next librarian We say "librarian" in the preceding and the following line, better say something like "She was followed by Elizabeth Kelly" for variety.
I wrote this out, and it seemed to say Kelly stalked Miller for a year, so I hope my wording suffices! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it should! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current director is Melinda Greenblatt Since when precisely?
2011, according to LinkedIn and the website (weak as it mostly relies on the 'last revised' date). There's no more reliable source for that, or for directors between 1990 and 2011, which is unfortunate. Perhaps I can inquire there for its publication. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue for FAC, can wait. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the changes. This article has my support on prose. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pinging other users today for this to receive more attention. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Intro: Too many hyphens at times (see "young-adult", "local-history")
Done.
  • "World War I delayed the progress of the library, though progress resumed in 1921." Sounds repetitive and clumsy
There was some above talk of rewording, and I was happy with the results. How do you think it could be reworded to be improved?
What exactly does the source say? I'm not quite sure what is meant by "progress" and "progress resuming". The previous rendering said "revived". Forgive me, but I'm going to need the exact meaning in order to suggest an alternative.
The source (Pattison, 1939) says "The war delayed the library's progress and, in 1921, it was revived, Mrs. A. G. Bookwalter being largely instrumental." Progress is hinted to be in developing the library - building its collection, cataloging, and establishing itself with the state.
  • When indicating changes due to inflation avoid using "today". Try something like "in 2015" or "in 2016", etc.
The inflation template I use actually auto-updates the inflation figures, so the template recommends using either 'today' or using the currentyear template within. I preferred 'today' considering that the template updates; is that sufficient?
I'm afraid not. See MOS:REALTIME.
Well that guideline states "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date." (emphasis added). Seeing as the template doesn't allow those constructions to go out of date, I don't really see an issue here. In many cases I'd change it, but I'm aiming for consistency with Book:Briarcliff Manor, where those articles' FACs and GANs passed with usage of "today".


  • Also, and I know it may sound obvious, but briefly indicate that it's US Dollars.
Done.
  • Be consist when using the percentage sign. I see both percent and %.
Okay.
  • Full stop should come before the citation at the close of the third paragraph.
That's a really weird instance. The inflation template uses the citation (here, [6]) right after the parentheses, where a full stop and sentence citations would normally follow. So technically I believe the current situation to be correct, however perhaps we should move the sentence citations and full stop before the inflation citation?
Yeah, I was thinking maybe reword the sentence so it doesn't come up like that. Perhaps "its expenditures were ... in 1951."
Done.
Briarcliff Manor Librarians
Name Tenure Notes
Louise Miller 1921-1926 Acting while studying library service at Columbia University
Elizabeth Kelly 1926-1927 Part-time art teacher at Briarcliff High School
Grace Baird Hersey 1928-1956 Mother of Pulitzer Prize-winning writer John Hersey
Mrs. William Osborne 1956-1963
Mrs. Robert Widenhorn 1963
Helen Barolini 1964-1965
Mrs. Bryden M. Dow 1965
Bettie Diver 1965-1968
Charles Farkas 1968-1990s
Melinda Greenblatt 2011-present
Sources:
  • "In the late 1900s, videocassettes were increasing in popularity..." I assume you mean "late 1990s"
I'm using 'the 1900s' to refer to the century, which is perhaps too ambiguous. I changed it to 'the 1980s and 90s'.
In most instances, 1900s refers to the decade 1900–1909. Late 20th century would be preferable since it keeps the intended meaning, but late 1980s and 1990s is fine too.
  • "In 1995 a referendum was voted on for a new library of..." Who voted? The library council? "Was voted on" sounds a bit awkward. Consider changing.
Fixed.
  • "Directors": This section appears rather short and doesn't fit cozily with the length of the others. Consider making a list of directors with their years of service indicated in one bar and comments/notes of the brief history of their work in another.
I'm not sure I get what you mean; can you provide a similar structure existing in another article?
I was thinking of a wikitable with a header reading Name, another header saying Tenure (where the years in which the individuals served would go), and the final one being Notes, where you can provide information relating to the person's time in office. Basically a short list. Was that better? 23 editor (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So like this? --->
It highlights the gap between the 1990s and 2011, and it makes the operations section almost nothing, and would cause the images to shift down pretty far, into the "see also" section or further. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor: Replied, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: Replied again. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just make sure to uses endashes in the table. Support 23 editor (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fencer2013

I checked through the article. The only date that I found that was incorrect was the addition of the mezzanine, which Cheever's book said was installed by Don Reiman, the architect, in 1984, not in 1980. Other than that, the article has all the essential information. If you want to add anything else, there is information about where Mrs. Bookwalter lived and information about Ruth Draper on page 76 of Cheever's book, and information about exhibits at the library on pages 151-152.

@Fencer2013: That's interesting, because the source I cited (a BMPL publication) says 1980. Link. Though considering the BMPL link gets a few other minor details wrong, I'll take Cheever's word. I wish a c. 1980s source could be found; I just checked Google and the NY Times and came up empty. I'll change the date and add the architect, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – . Hi, Ɱ. Support as long as you do not revert my edits. All my edits are rock solid and improve the article towards its Featured Article promotion. If you have issues with any of my edits, please contact me, and I will advise you of the exact guideline, policy, or style decision behind each edit I made. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Ɱ, has a source review been done that I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on tone and wording. Unfortunatly the article very often reads as the opening page of a website; i picked up from a short scan, the first para I now just read - "The Briarcliff library is open seven days per week, except in August when it is closed each Sunday.[27] The library hosts four computer workstations and eight laptops, and has its own Wi-Fi network.[28] Hmm. Also, the nominator canvassed me for a quid pro quo source review, which in fairness seems to have been in innocence. But I cant support at this time. Sorry Ɱ. Keep on going however. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Information about the organization's hours and equipment is important, and noted on many other encyclopedia articles. Heck, the article on the US Supreme Court even goes into detail about visiting hours and the like. Plus the tone here isn't at fault; the wording is very neutral and encyclopedic, and there's no way to convey the same information in a manner more neutral than I have. I am disappointed that you refer to it as Canvassing as it's simply not, nor was it inappropriate at all. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two things. First the article is a credit to you, and I am delighted you have brought it this far. Well done, and you should be proud (I have something approaching a book fetish, and anytime we go somewhere the first things I establish are the locations of the libraries and bookshops, also my wife is a librarian.). Second, I dont think you canvassed me, more that you just want to get things done, which I admire. Sorry if I seemed off in my response, I was conflicted while thinking it through. Lastly, my oppose is "at this time", not indefinite. Its more of a challange, other things I'm reading that I dont like too much are "On September 1, 1922, the Club's library funds were transferred to the Library Committee, and the village government donated US$500 ($7,100 today)[9] to the library in 1924. At that time, it had 1,900 volumes; it grew to 3,000 in 1926 and to around 6,000 in 1939. In 1952, the library had 8,000 volumes, 1,000 of which were in storage due to a lack of shelf space.[1](p62}/. Fact/fact, stat/stat. I prefer more context and a less dry style. I am hopeful you can make this a better article. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I appreciate your changes to correct this, and I made a few further changes. Sources make context difficult, I'm afraid there's not much I could add to make it seem less dry. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Will take another look later tonight. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the extent of the Westchester County Bike Trail is needed as a separate lead para. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you rather see it placed? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 21:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed altogether, to be honest.
I see no reason why we should, it's a nearby element that helps people understand where the library is, and things immediately nearby, and it's relevant that the trackbed by the train station is now the rail trail by the library. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd explain, in the text, via a bluelink, or via a foot note, what an "efficiency rating" is; its mentioned twice in one para. Also the word "recieved" prefaces both - vary the wording. This sect seems to contain a stray ref remenant (p61) - "its expenditures were $1,875.86 ($17,100 today)[9] in 1951.[1](p61). Still reading through. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you want me to explain here. The NYSED gave ratings of a library's efficiency; that should be clear from the text. Varied the wording. I don't see a stray ref remnant, perhaps you're not familiar with Template:Rp as part of a citation style? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This nom has been open over two months without two opposing reviews apparently being resolved, but I'll give those reviewers a chance to re-check the article and see if their positions have altered. Axl, Ceoil? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I still don't think that the article meets the FA criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Victoriaearle

Lead
  • Are two sources required to verify that the library is part of the Westchester Library System? Or is one of the sources there to verify its address? If so, I'm not sure that's necessary.
  • "It is staffed by a director and two and three-quarters full-time and eight part-time employees, including reference and youth librarians." > Sentence is difficult to parse. There's a director, and two full-time librarians?
  • "The building houses the village's historical society and recreation department offices." > The building hasn't been introduced yet. Is the library in a building which includes the village historical department and the recreation department? If so perhaps something like this is better: "The library is housed in a building with the village historical society and recreation department offices."
  • "The original station was renovated and reopened as the William J. Vescio Community Center on May 30, 2016." > Which station? Is the building a station of some sort?
  • I see that the building is explained in the second para >> suggest restructuring so that the station isn't mentioned until after it's been introduced.
History
  • Text squash with the image on the left, the infobox falling down into the right, the image directly below, and the table needs to be resolved.
  • "The building, built as a public school in 1898 at the current Pleasantville Road southbound ramp to Route 9A, was sold to the Westchester Parkway Commission in 1928 and burned down in 1929." > hard to parse. Suggest removing the information about highway ramps because as written the sentence covers three decades and presumably the ramps weren't there then.
  • "World War I slowed its expansion, though progress resumed in 1921." I thought the building burned down? Needs a transition or some explanation that despite the burning of the Club the library continued to build its collection, albeit at a slower rate.
  • "This was achieved largely due to the efforts of Amy Bookwalter, at a time when the Library Board consisted entirely of women." Because the men were at war? Because women worked in libraries? Is there context for the sentence that the board consisted entirely of women. Was it only that year or have there been other years when women dominated the board?
  • "On March 8–13 of that year, the Briarcliff Free Library was officially opened" > this is confusing because the first sentence in the paragraph tells us that the library was founded in 1914 by Edward S. Arnold. Did he only begin the collection but not make it publicly available?

Oppose - sorry, but I'm stopping here. This is an interesting article but I think it still needs some work. The "History" section is very stuffed, the lay-out needs work, the structure needs some work - generally to provide more context - and I think the library's story (which seems interesting) is overwhelmed with factoids that smother the underlying story. My suggestion would be to allow it to archive, to take a step back to regain perspective and then to start trimming out some of the irrelevant material in favor of the more interesting material that perhaps can be built up more. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Briarcliff_Manor_Public_Library/archive1&oldid=1138456477"