Talk:Buro Happold

I corrected the statement that Buro Happold originally worked mainly in the United Kingdom to say that Buro Happold originally worked mainly in the Middle East. For the first years of their existence they worked almost exclusively on projects in the Middle East, though based in Bath in the UK. This can be checked by looking at their website and the history of the firm.

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)Reply

•  
  The Millennium Dome, seen from the Isle of Dogs.
•  
  Aerial view of the Millennium Dome
• Evelina Children's Hospital
  Evelina Children's Hospital
• The Faisaliah Center
  The Faisaliah Center
•  
  Front entrance to the 2006 Ascot Stands
•  
•  
  The new Ascot Racecourse stand from the track
•  
  British Museum Great Court, East Portico of Sir Robert Smirke's building with the new roof above;
•  
  Multihalle in Mannheim, wooden gridshell structure designed with Frei Otto.
•  
  The entrance to The Lowry
•  
  Sheffield Winter Garden
•  
  The rebuilt Globe Theatre in London
•  
  Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin
•  
  The Media Centre at Lord's Cricket Ground
•  
  Beetham Tower nearing completion in February 2006. Rear view
•  
  Looking up the main stairwell of the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds
•  
  Tanaka Business School, Imperial College
•  
  View of the South Bridge with the Arsenal statue lettering in the foreground and the Emirates Stadium in the background.
•  
  Clarence Dock Bridge in Leeds
•  
  Front view of the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (Cambridge) at the University of Cambridge
•  
  The Nomadic Museum in Santa Monica, California in 2006]]
•  
  Magna Centre
•  
  The Glasgow Tower
•  
  Weald and Downland Gridshell
•  
  Alexandra Arch bridge, Singapore

I take your point, but does the gallery not provide a useful source. Looking up a particular architecture or engineering firm in an encyclopedia, it would often be the images that are most useful - and the gallery seems to provide a good way of avoiding long lists of the buildings they have worked on. In the case of firms like Buro Happold or even more so Arup, the entry of which still needs significant work, there are very many projects which merit inclusion in the entry. Should they just be added as a list, or should each actually have a short description. What is normal? Tkn20 20:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

Nice article, just a few things I noticed, some of which may be dialect differences between British and American English

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS):  

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:  

6. 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):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that this does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concrns are listed below:

• The lede is too short and does not summarise the contents of the article,
• There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since 2020.
• Much of the prose is promotional in nature and not in WP:WIKIVOICE.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply