Talk:Buro Happold

message: These things just become a snapshot pinboard - we've got the commons for that - I'm putting them here so we can weave them into the text as required. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery moved from mainspace

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
Details:
*History section, it would be nice to have a citation for the paragraph staring "The King's Office..." and the other unsourced paragraphs in this section. 
* Project section, Lightweight structures subsection, third paragraph. I'm not a Brit, I'm a Yank, so I'm not sure if the "drawing in" is just a dialect issue or a typo in the second sentence. I would have phrased it "With Bodo Rasch, a protege of Fei Otto, and drawing on experience from the Pink Floyd..." Also the spelling of protegee, is that correct for British English?
*Same section and subsection, fourth paragraph, a citation for the last sentence?
* Same section, Notable international projects subsection, In progress list = the Grand Egyptian Museum line, the part beginning "the building services design for a new museum ..." is unclear to me. I have no idea why the "building services" is included in there, since the nearest sense I can make of what is trying to be expressed is "The design for a new museum adjacent to the Pyramids in Egypt, to house the world's largest collection of ancient Egyptian antiquities."... the "building services" phrase doesn't add anything to that meaning that I can see, and just adds confusion.
* Same section, Other significant activities subsection, I would reword the first sentence of the first paragraph to "Buro Happold is best known for engineering buildings, but it also..." to advoid confusion.
* As a matter of style, I'd vary the alignment of the pictures, so they are not all marching down the right hand side of the page.
Overall just a few small places that could use some citations and a few prose tweaks and it is good to go. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow folks to address these issues. Feel free to contact me here, or on my talk page with any questions or concerns. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some work being done on the article, if ya'll can let me know here or on my talk page when you're ready for me to look at the article again, it'd be great! Thanks. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking back in to see if more time is needed or where we stand on this. If you could let me know, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, been away for a while - yes, please take a look again. I have incorporated your suggestions.Tkn20 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Only thing to possibly work on is the See also links. Make sure none of them are redundant (i.e. linked up in the article) and that all of them are really necessarily related to the article. Not being a architect, I can't judge the necessity of them, but the trend is to go away from long 'see also' links, and to try to eliminate them as much as possible. More a "heads up" than anything.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I believe the importance of this article within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Engineering is incorrect.  Criteria for "high-importance" rating of an article is defined as "The article is about the basic technologies and infrastructures or the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Engineering" (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Engineering/Assessment).  This article does not match this criteria. I have changed the classification to "mid-importance", defined as "The article is about a topic within Engineering that may or may not be commonly known outside the Engineering industry".  --Charlesreid1 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Importance Justification