Jump to content

User talk:Marycdrl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Marycdrl, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Pascall+Watson

[edit]

Hi, I have to say that my first action was to block your account as a sockpuppet of User:Pascall+Watson, but I then realised that the block on that account somewhat generously allowed you to carry on editing with a new user name, so I've unblocked. You should not be editing on behalf of a company rather than yourself, but I'm not going to change another admin's block. The company is clearly notable, but I deleted the newer version of the article because it was effectively no more than an (unreferenced) list of the company's projects, which is basically just spamming. You told us little about the company itself other than locations. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?

You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I've seen worse, and you may be able to produce something acceptable, but you need to distance yourself from your employer and write a neutral balanced article as if you were an outside observer. Not connected to the deletion, but I suggest that you use this format for your refs to make them more informative than a bare url: <ref>[url description]</ref> Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness, your contributions don't suggest that you are a completely uninvolved new editor who just happened to pick this company at random. I'll post the deleted text here shortly. let me know if you want me to comment at any stage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the deleted page, and I absolutely cannot see anything promotional about it. Can you explain, Jimfbleak, what you see as promotional about it? And are you sure you are not allowing yourself to be unconsciously influenced by Marycdrl's previous username, which did suggest a connection to the company, and may have predisposed you to see anything she writes as being promotion for the company? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson, I've given my reasons above and sandboxed the article for improvement. If you think it's OK for article space as it stands, that's fine with me. Just move it, and I'll leave it alone. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: OK, I agree that the "project list" is the sort of thing that I regard as mildly promotional, but that might at most justify removing that section, not deleting the whole article, and even then it's borderline, in my opinion. I see nothing promotional about the lead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson:, that's a fair point, and I accept that I don't much care for companies posting about themselves. The text is back anyway. Personally, I think it's better in the sandbox for now, but as I said above, I have no objections if you want to move it to article space Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson::@Jimfbleak:I appreciate the second opinion. Look at any other comparable architecture or engineering firm and its full of project list and awards won. I actually used coding from other architecture pages to try to form a confirming page. Marycdrl (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have some more thoughts on this, Mary, but just now I don't feel up to collecting those thoughts together and writing them in a coherent form. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow morning. Please remind me if I haven't come back to you by about midday tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson::Hi. I'm keen to hear your feedback. No major panic on it though. Many thanks. Marycdrl (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Mary, I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you in the time frame that I intended to. I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and if I don't deal with something right away it tends to get lost somewhere in the background of my brain, while my attention moves on to other things, and it never gets done. Thanks for prompting me.
  • I have looked at the article again, and I really can't see it as substantially promotional, but I do see two things which look somewhat promotional. What is more, they are two of the sorts of things that often come in real spam articles, so that anyone with a significant amount of experience of dealing with spammers on Wikipedia will be likely to pick up on them, and perhaps give them more weight than they really deserve. I suspect that that, combined with your previous username, are what led to the article being seen as promotional.
  1. The list of "Notable projects" is the sort of thing that tends to be included in articles written by companies for promotional purposes, in the spirit of "Look at all these important projects we have done, proving what a great company we must be". I don't myself feel that in this case it looks very promotional, unlike similar lists in some spammy articles, but even so, it would probably be better to get rid of the list, and replace it with a sentence or two, saying something like "Pascall+Watson were the architects for London Heathrow's terminals 2 and 5", and so on. Also, try to give sources for the work. You do have a source for Heathrow Terminal 5, but not for the others. Since you know that Pascall+Watson worked on those projects, you must have got that information from somewhere, and if that somewhere was a published reliable source, you can give it as a reference. Ideally, give sources for all of the projects, but certainly give them for as many as you can.
  2. "Pascall+Watson have been involved in major projects worldwide as concept architects and delivery architects" does read very much like the sort of language used by marketing departments. I am sure it is true, but the way it is expressed comes over as promotional. I don't know much about the architecture business, and have only a hazy notion of what "concept architects and delivery architects" means. If it is important enough that you feel it really needs including in the article, then perhaps you could incorporate it into the opening sentences. Otherwise I suggest just dropping it. It probably doesn't add much information about the company to most readers of the encyclopaedia. I definitely recommend dropping "involved in major projects", because for one thing it reads as promotional, and for another thing it is redundant: it is obvious that a company that has been involved in work on the various airports you mention has been involved in major projects. My own inclination would be to simply drop the whole sentence.
  • Wikipedia can be an intimidating, confusing, and threatening place for new editors. When I started editing seven years ago, I found things rather frustrating, and you have had a much worse introduction than I had, so I fully understand the comments you have made expressing your frustration. Unfortunately, many editors who come to Wikipedia full of enthusiasm for the idea of contributing to the free encyclopaedia very quickly get disillusioned and disheartened, and leave. On the other hand, there are many of us who stick through the early stage, and find that once we are used to how things work, contributing to the encyclopaedia really is rewarding. I really hope that you will fall into the second category, not the first. I will give you a bit of advice that I have given to a good many new editors whose first experiences have been discouraging. From what I have seen happen to numerous new editors over the years, I am certain that it is best at first to avoid writing new articles, and stick to making small improvements to existing articles. That way, the mistakes you make (and you will make mistakes, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the frustrating experience of seeing hours of work thrown away. Gradually, you will learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is considered acceptable and what isn't to be able to write new articles without fear that they will be deleted. What I have seen over the years has totally convinced me that editors who start by making small improvements to existing articles have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who dive straight into creating lots of new article. That is the advice I have given to a lot of new editors, and I now offer you the same advice, but with one exception. Despite the deletion, in my opinion the article you wrote is much better than a good many Wikipedia articles. I would encourage you to do some more work on it, taking into account the suggestions I have made above, and we can then move it back into article space (or "mainspace" as it is usually called), and after that I suggest you stick to improving existing articles until you have more experience.
  • All of what I have said is advice, not instructions, and it is, of course, up to you whether you take my advice. However, the advice is based on a large amount of experience of how things work on Wikipedia.
  • I am posting to the top of this page a rather belated "welcome" message, which includes links to various pages giving information about editing Wikipedia. Don't try to read and learn all of it before you do any more editing, because there is far too much there, but do have a look at any of them which seem to be relevant to your needs at the moment, and of course you can always come back and read some of the others if they become relevant in the future.

I see that at present there are two slightly different versions of the draft article, one at User:Marycdrl/sandbox and one at User:Marycdrl/Pascall+Watson. I suggest sticking to one or the other, to avoid confusion. If anyone else had made contributions to the article, it would be essential to use the one with the editing history showing their contributions, as keeping a record of who made what contribution is required by Wikipedia's terms of use, for copyright reasons. As it is, with you as the sole author, I don't see that it matters a great deal which you choose to keep, though there might just about be a marginal advantage in keeping User:Marycdrl/sandbox, as it shows the record of the article's history, being deleted and then restored. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought I had finished here, but one more thing has come up. I have just added "userspace draft" tags to the tops of the two draft copies of the article. When I did so, I found that the "userspace draft" template has been changed since I last used it. It now has a button to submit the draft for review at Articles for Creation. You may do that if you like, but I don't recommend it. The number of draft articles at Articles for Creation is always far too large for the number of editors who work there, so submissions often wait there for a very long time. Also, the feedback that is given there is usually very basic, much briefer than what I have told you, and in my opinion it is often not very helpful to an inexperienced editor. Like everything else, this is just my opinion, though, and you are free to submit the draft if you like. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: WOW!!! Thank you so much for the constructive and positive feedback. Much, much more helpful than chucking people off. In my defence of the 'project lists' I have just followed the exact same format as other notable and comparable architecture practices. I will certainly follow up by incorporating the projects into paragraphs with actual informative information about the projects where I can source something appropriate from a reliable source. I suppose I'm still a little nervous of adding content - once bitten, twice shy! The use of the words like 'involved' in are simply as to not confuse a reader that I would give credit to Pascall+Watson for work that they did not do. I would not wish to mislead anyone, for example, Pascall+Watson's work on Heathrow T5 was major. They acted as delivery architects. T5's concept architects were Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. I will source good explanations for these roles and cite them in the article so as to not confuse people. Another example is Blackfriars Station. Pascall+Watson was the concept architects, but the architecture commission was then changed hands to Jacobs. In my experience of researching these projects, many times Pascall+Watson do not actually get the mention that they should have. This is one of the reasons I wanted to set this page up in the first place. I do notice also online that many many articles state the company name in the wrong way. Some use & some use the word and and even sometimes the company name is spelled wrong. Often, because of these errors, I have to search for ages to find articles of interest to me. I am a little OCD, so I want to try to change this error where it appears on wikipedia (I've already done a few). I am Irish, and I first became interested in Pascall+Watson when they were the architects for the new Terminal 2 Building in Dublin. Again, many thanks for the feedback. I look forward to growing this little projects into something worthy of full wikipedia article status. Marycdrl (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Pascall+Watson (June 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Sionk (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marycdrl, I'll continue the conversation here so all the discussion about this draft article is in one place. To be honest, there has been a lot of constructive advice and pointers already given above, so I'm not sure what else to add. The reviewer message on the article are there to give advice and pointers, not to 'tell you off'. Even you admit above that Pascall + Watson "do not actually get the mention that they should have" (which has spurred you to write this article). That says to me that the company have not been widely noticed, reviewed or written about i.e. they are not notable in Wikipedia terms (I worked in architecture for well over 10 years and have never heard of them).
Looking at the journalistic sources you use for the article, AJ simply lists P+W in their annual 'Top 100' survey, Dezeen attributes St Petersburg Airport to Grimshaws and only very briefly mentions P+W twice, the Commercial Observer article is not about P+W at all. The BD article seems more substantial, but isn't anywhere near enough on its own to meet WP:GNG criteria.
You'll need to show that P+W (and/or one or more of its buildings) has been widely written about in journalistic/book sources before a reviewer was convinced the company deserved a profile in Wikipedia.
Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, How can it be that the architect of Dublin Airport Terminal 2 - one of the largest building projects in Ireland in recent years, London Bridge Terminating Station - at the foot of Renzo Piano's Shard, Blackfriars Station - the first station to span the Thames, and delivery architect of Heathrow Terminal 2 - a £2.5bn project, Pulkovo Airport, and so many more, is NOT notable!!! And your point about working in architecture for 10 years has no importance - you can't have possibly heard of every practice. I'm at the point of giving up here out of sheer frustration but I don't want to because I think I have a good and purposeful article.

Would any of the following examples be classed as 'good' references - just before I go wasting my time writing:

http://www.ukspa.org.uk/science_parks/content/1098/pascallwatson_architects

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/pascall-watson

http://m.architectsjournal.co.uk/8662968.article.

http://www.milenio.com/negocios/Aeropuerto-Ciudad_de_Mexico-Slim-Romero_y_Foster-proyecto-SCT-Norman_Foster-Fernando_Romero_0_306569667.html

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-28493-consortium-awarded-place-on-3bn-midfield-terminal/

http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5066430.article?mobilesite=enabled

http://aasarchitecture.com/2014/03/heathrow-new-terminal-2-by-luis-vidal-architects.html

http://www.archdaily.com/495573/mexico-city-shortlists-seven-architects-for-major-airport-expansion/

http://www.smart-airports.com/gallery/item/30-alan-lamond-aviation-director-pascall-watson-architects/30-alan-lamond-aviation-director-pascall-watson-architects

http://www.worldconstructionnetwork.com/news/pascallwatson-rsh-and-buro-happold-consortium-selected-for-abu-dhabi-airport-project-040614-4284696/

http://www.prater.co.uk/case-studies/london-stansted-airport

http://om.adsgroup.org.uk/directorydetail.aspx?OrganisationId=8249&directorycode=6339&infocode=ORG_DIR&returnpage=1&resultsperpage=10&cstype=BAG

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21416847

http://www.airport-technology.com/news/newskenya-build-new-terminal-jomo-kenyatta-international-airport-2013

http://www.colebrookbossonsaunders.com/case-studies/passenger-terminals/heathrow-airport-t5

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=634

http://www.constructionkenya.com/2417/greenfield-terminal-construction/

http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/architecture/londons-latest-landmark-blackfriars-station-7847542.html

http://www.civictrustawards.org.uk/winners/blackfriars-station

http://propertyawards.net/uk-2013/

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/pascallwatson-to-get-slice-of-the-shard/5207886.article


http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/pascallwatson-proposes-200m-london-city-airport-expansion/8653339.article (Marycdrl (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sionk, Just to clarify the sources you have criticized:
  • "AJ simply lists P+W in their annual 'Top 100' survey" - That is all I was attributing it to as I had given the position of the practice within the AJ100 and gave the link to their site to prove it.
  • "Dezeen attributes St Petersburg Airport to Grimshaws and only very briefly mentions P+W twice" - What more do you need it so say exactly? Grimshaw collaborated with engineering firm Ramboll and delivery architect Pascall+Watson to complete the first terminal of Pulkovo International Airport. That is in the article plain as day?
  • "the Commercial Observer article is not about P+W at all" - I know! It is to state what the meaning of the term 'Executive Architect' is. The majority of the work carried out by Pascall+Watson seems to be executive architecture work.
  • "The BD article seems more substantial, but isn't anywhere near enough on its own to meet WP:GNG criteria." - Are you serious?! I really don't intend to be rude, but I think this is being overly picky!

(Marycdrl (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Looking through the list of sources above, the lengthy Evening Standard article seems to be moving towards the sort of thing that we're looking for - it's an important general, wide circulation news source that clearly attributes the design of Blackfriars Station to P+W, describes the design and bemoans the fact P+W were taken off the project.
As for your second response above, of course I am going to examine the AJ and Dezeen sources because you claimed, on my Talk page, that they conferred notability on the company. Being very brief mentions only, it's quite clear they don't confer much at all. The coverage needs to be 'significant', not just brief mentions. As for carrying out executive architecture work, well, that seems to be the basic bread and butter job of an architecture practice, not at all remarkable in my view. Sionk (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sionk Hi again. Thanks for the feedback. I have made some changes to the page. I'm not expecting that you approve it straight away, but I am merely looking for pointers as to whether I'm heading in the right direction. I added links and more references, and a section on 'other commissions'. Is this more like what would be expected? Are there sections or items I should remove altogether? Would adding in a section on their notable awards be of importance? Apologies for my abruptness the other day. (Marycdrl (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I'd be hesitant to say the article is moving in the right direction at the moment, there's not a lot of information about the company (and what there is is unsourced). If they have won major awards for the work they did, then of course this will be vital information to add (the Awards section is currently empty).
Companies need some sort of evidence they (or their work) has been recognised and talked about by non-specialised, general news/book sources and, in this case P+W have at least had some coverage in the Evening Standard. To be honest, I'm more sympathetic to articles about architecture practices and, if I could see some sort of sourced info about the background/history of the company I'd be inclined to accept it. Sionk (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pascall+Watson has been accepted

[edit]
Pascall+Watson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marycdrl&oldid=1046253428"