User talk:ForEveryOccasion

Welcome

Hello, ForEveryOccasion! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Acroterion _(talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

KEA

Thanks for the new Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Inc. article. The firm is clearly notable, but you might want to look at making it more encyclopedia-article-like and less marketing-sounding. Slogans or taglines aren't good, lists of notable projects and formal, objective discussions of the firm and its history referenced to academic sources are. I would be cautious about articles on individual principals unless you can make a good case for their notability independent of the firm, which can be hard to do.

While I have your attention, please take a moment to look at Wikiproject architecture. There's a lot to be done, and there are very few architects here at WP. Any help you care to give on any front, particularly if you've got a good architecture library and can help with sourcing and expanding articles, would be greatly appreciated. Acroterion _(talk) 20:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acroterion ... I'll work on changing the language to fit the encyclopedia style more. Could you note one or two intances in the current entry that particularily need work? Also, would it make more sense to tag this a "stub" until a more complete list of important projects, awards, and references is compiled? I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm very greatful for help with this page!ForEveryOccasion (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a testament to the lamentable state of architecture here that the best modern-day firm article I could find is Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, which has an internal rating if "C" - "B" normally being considered pretty good. Everything else I checked was a stub or a start. So, I'd use the SOM article as a general model. I think it's got far too much of a list, which ought to be split out as a sub-article, but it'll give you a general idea. As for suggestions, I'd lose the quote at the end of the lede, as well as words like "infused". Think more formally and academically - i.e., kind of stiff, but descriptive of what is important to know about the firm, as described in published references like the monographs. Please avoid quotes if at all possible unless there's something unique that can't be said another way. It's better to rewrite in your own words to avoid any hint of plagiarism (remember that this is a free-content project, so you're placing things into the public domain, so you have to be careful), and then reference the source of your statement accordingly.

You can certainly tag it as a stub, although that's more of an internal housekeeping thing for things that obviously need expansion. Try to keep the awards lists down to a dead minimum, as it really doesn't come off as very encyclopedic, and try to pick projects that really mean something and that might be able to stand on their own as articles. Acroterion _(talk) 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Architects

I see that you have recently added Hank Koning and Julie Eizenberg to the list of Australian Architects - the only problem is that neither the entry or the article on Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Inc. provides a clear indication as to why they they should be included on that list. Looking at the firm's website I can see that both are Australian registered architects but you need expand the entry on the list to give a bit more detail/background info - particularly their contribution to Australian architecture. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]