Talk:Deborah Berke Partners

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

please help[edit]

Article flagged for weasel words and a close connection with subject. Please help?Dberke220 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And… instead of fixing anything, or hoping someone showed up to help, you just reverted it back—to the previous biased version.
To start off with, I'm making the assumption that an editor with the name User:Dberke220, who has only ever edited the Deborah Berke & Partners Architects, is affiliated with the firm. Is that correct? If so, I recommend in the strongest possible fashion that you read up on how Wikipedia views Conflict of Interest. In particular, you need to read:
The short version: it's recommended that you not edit this article. If there are changes you wish made, suggest them here, and let someone else—someone unaffiliated with the firm—make the edits.


Now, as to the changes that you say were incorrect/ungrammatical:
Your preferred version Copyedited and wikified version
Deborah Berke & Partners designs a mix of residential, commercial, and "creative institutional" projects as well as distinctive hotels. Notable projects include follow-ups in Bentonville, Arkansas, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Lexington, Kentucky to the award-winning 21c Museum Hotel. The firm is also working on the design of a community arts center in Manhattan that is home to Mabou Mines, and Performance Space 122; László Z. Bitó '60 Conservatory Building at Bard College; an addition and renovation to the Rockefeller University Arts Center at SUNY Fredonia and a new residence hall at Dickinson College. The firm has long been well known for its residential projects and has designed houses in the Hamptons, Westchester County, Connecticut, New York City, and the Caribbean. Deborah Berke & Partners Architects designs a mix of hotels, residential, commercial, and "creative institutional" projects. The firm is also working on the design of a community arts center in Manhattan that is home to Mabou Mines and Performance Space 122; László Z. Bitó '60 Conservatory Building at Bard College; an addition and renovation to the Rockefeller University Arts Center at SUNY Fredonia and a new residence hall at Dickinson College. The firm has designed houses in the Hamptons, Westchester County, Connecticut, New York City, and the Caribbean.
The practice has received numerous awards for its work, including the AIA Kentucky Honor Award for the 21c Museum Hotel Louisville, 2011. The 21c Museum Hotel in Louisville also garnered the AIANYS Excellence for Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse in 2007, and the Best of Year Award for Hospitality Design, Interior Design Magazine, in 2006. Deborah Berke & Partners won an AIA NYS Award of Merit for the Marianne Boesky Gallery in 2009. In 2009 the Irwin Union Bank was awarded a Citation for Design by AIA NYS and an AIA NY Merit Award for Architecture. In 2007, The James Hotel Chicago earned a Citation for Interiors from the AIA NYS and the firm was awarded The Hospitality Design Award for Creative Achievement, Hotel Luxury, by Hospitality Design. The firm received AIANY Design awards for Box Studios (2004), the Baron Loft (2001), and the Howell Loft(1999). In 2012, 48 Bond Street received an Award of Excellence from the Society of American Registered Architects NY Council. The practice has received numerous awards for its work. The 21c Museum Hotel (2006) in Louisville, Kentucky won the American Institute of Architects Kentucky Honor Award in 2011, the AIA NYS Excellence for Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse in 2007, and the Best of Year Award for Hospitality Design, Interior Design Magazine, in 2006. Deborah Berke & Partners Architects won an AIA NYS Award of Merit for the Marianne Boesky Gallery in 2009. In 2009 the Irwin Union Bank was awarded a Citation for Design by AIA NYS and an AIA NY Merit Award for Architecture. In 2007, The James Hotel Chicago earned a Citation for Interiors from the AIA NYS and the firm was awarded The Hospitality Design Award for Creative Achievement, Hotel Luxury, by Hospitality Design. The firm received AIA NY Design awards for Box Studios (2004), the Baron Loft (2001), and the Howell Loft (1999). In 2012, 48 Bond Street received an Award of Excellence from the Society of American Registered Architects NY Council.
Deborah Berke & Partners was a National Design Awards Finalist for Interior Design in 2008. Deborah Berke & Partners Architects was a National Design Awards finalist for Interior Design in 2008. Future projects include follow-ups in Bentonville, Arkansas, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Lexington, Kentucky to the 21c Museum Hotel.
I see the one on the right as more suitable for an encyclopedia. For instance:
  • It has a considerably larger number of wikilinks, which are what makes Wikipedia so valuable (note: I also added five incoming article links, making this article no longer an orphan).
  • It fixed typos such as "Howell Loft(1999)" and the switching back & forth between AIANYS and AIA NYS.
  • It cleaned up obvious peacock statements such as "long been well known."
  • It consistently used "Deborah Berke & Partners Architects" (the correct name of the firm) instead of sometimes using "Deborah Berke & Partners."
Additionally, the edited version:
Consequently, I'm reverting back to the latter version. If you have specific examples of problems (versus just "It's not my version"), please discuss them here. Thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

proposed changes[edit]

Thank you for your editorial review and suggested changes of the article, "Deborah Berke & Partners Architects". I apologize for my previous misunderstandings, my edits were made in good faith. WP:SCOIC I am an employee of Deborah Berke & Partners Architects. Please see my user page for more information [[REDIRECT]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meredith_at_DBA] To avoid further COI issues, I have retired the DBerke220 account and created a more transparent account: Meredith at DBA User talk:Meredith at DBA.

Proposed Changes: I propose to keep the sentence: "Notable projects include follow-ups in Bentonville, Arkansas, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Lexington, Kentucky to the award-winning 21c Museum Hotel" in the first paragraph because these are current, ongoing projects (not "future projects" as stated at the end of the revised article). The word "also" does not make sense without this sentence preceding it in this paragraph.

Here are some citations:

http://www.21cmuseumhotels.com/cincinnati http://www.21cmuseumhotels.com/bentonville

The other proposed change, based on the above documented information, is to remove this sentence from the last paragraph: "Future projects include follow-ups in Bentonville, Arkansas, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Lexington, Kentucky to the 21c Museum Hotel".

Thank you very much for your time and your help.

[[REDIRECT] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deborah_Berke_%26_Partners] Meredith at DBA (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


How's the current version look to you? I did a few other things while I was at it. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Dori, the proposed changes look good! Thank you. Will this resolution remove the flags from the public page?
Thank you very much.
Meredith at DBA (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Cleanup templates aren't meant as a badge of shame, but rather, simply notes to future editors about what they can do to help make the article even better. In my latest edit (along with adding an infobox), I've moved them inline which should have the same effect. Hope that's okay with you… Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your inline comments - suggested changes and explanation of "current"[edit]

Dear Dori, Thank you again for moving your comments inline. Last night, I sent some suggested edits to see if we can omit the inline comments.

To explain the word "current" in the Current Projects paragraph: when designing a new space, whether it will be new construction or a renovation of existing space, it can take years from the time a client signs a contract until the building is built and open. During that time, the architect conducts primary and secondary research to understand exactly what the client needs and desires for the space. This includes understanding the number and anticipated use of rooms needed, overall goals for the building or campus, and users' needs and requirements. Primary research includes conducting visioning sessions with the client and stakeholders to gain that understanding. Secondary research includes reading any reports, such as a masterplan, that may have been created about the building or campus, as well as reviewing any past architectural work that has been done to understand the building's history (ex., if there are designations such as National Historic Landmark ) and the structural integrity of an existing building. The architect then designs proposed sections of the building for the client to comment on, with the goal of obtaining approval for construction. The final phase is construction, when the architect remains on the project to ensure that the approved architectural drawings are implemented perfectly.

Therefore, the projects listed as "current" are in progress, and have an estimated year of completion when the building is anticipated to be open for public use, as follows:

  • Rockefeller Arts Center Addition and Renovation, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY, Estimated completion: 2015
  • 122 Community Center, New York, NY, Estimated completion: 2014
  • Dickinson College, New Residence Hall, Carlisle, PA, , Estimated completion: 2013
  • Bard College, The László Z. Bitó ‘60 Conservatory Building, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, Estimated completion: 2013
  • 21c Museum Hotel Bentonville, Arkansas, Estimated completion: 2013
  • 21c Museum Hotel Cincinnati, Ohio, Estimated completion: 2012
  • 21c Museum Hotel Lexington, Kentucky, Estimated completion:2014

Thank you. Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving your comments inline; Proposed additional changes[edit]

I'd like to keep working toward a goal of having no comments. I understand I can no longer edit this article. Perhaps I can suggest ways of editing to omit the comments? For instance: Can you please let me know what kind of proof is needed for Berke's 2 partners and principals? A link or reference to the firm's website would show those 4 people, but my understanding is that is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. By the way, I noticed that the partners' names are appearing in the photo credits for Temple Tyler.

Perhaps we should remove the phrase "creative institutional" (leaving only "institutional") - it is a direct quote from a magazine but it can come out if that would improve the sentence and let us be rid of the "buzzword" comment.

As for a third party source needed regarding the firm has won "numerous awards", the rest of the paragraph shows those sources. However, if asserting that the firm has won awards is not appropriate, perhaps remove that sentence and begin the paragraph with the 2nd sentence: "The 21c Museum Hotel...".

Current projects are projects happening right now, as we speak, in 2012. They will be complete over the next 2-3 years respectively. I can provide those dates tomorrow morning if that would be useful?

Thank you again. I am truly grateful to you for your help. 67.85.225.12 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Replies to the above for Meredith
  • Firstly, are both the above from you? I've moved the latter group down from earlier on the page so that they're together; if they aren't both yours, my refactoring should be reverted.
  • {{clarify}}

    Independent third-party sources are what's needed here. If you have them, please post them! The problem is that everything in the lead is supposed to be supported in the body of the article, and there's nothing in the body about the makeup of the firm.

  • {{buzz}}

    You say above that "creative institutional" is a direct quote from a magazine. A reference to the magazine would be sufficient, if we knew what the source was. It can't be Interior Design, as that article has it in quotes, showing that it's been copied from elsewhere.

  • The tag in the "Awards" section says

    {{third-party-inline|reason=All of the references in this section are to primary sources}}

    That is, it's not in reference to the one sentence, but to the section overall (normally I would have used a {{primary sources|section}} tag). Saying that the firm has won awards is absolutely appropriate; the issue is that the section lacks references independent of the award-givers.

  • {{when}}

    I understand what "current" means; unfortunately, "current" doesn't work well in an encyclopedia (see WP:As of). Even if it began with "As of May 2012," the "Current projects" section will (by definition) become out of date in the future as each project ends.

  • I noticed that the partners' names are appearing in the photo credits for Temple Tyler.

    I'm not sure what you meant by this. If you're referring to the infobox, the names show as partners under the Practice information section. It's not a photo credit.

Got any other questions? Just ask… Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your edits May 15[edit]

Hi Dori, I keep checking my Talk page and the Teahouse and somehow did not see any of your comments until just now. They seem to get buried in the text and I do not receive any email notifications when comments are made. Anyway, thank you for your continued work on this article.

I'm sorry you removed the partners' names from the picture box on the right -- it was so nice to see them there. I was merely trying to show you an independent source (WP) of the information. I am sorry it was not clear. I understand the "clarify" comment may be about the difference or definition of partner and principal (this clarification came from the Teahouse), so I will work on that.

The issue with the awards section is that those primary sources are the only sources that exist and having researched Wikipedia's rules for Primary Sources, I believe they are being used properly. The Policy on using primary sources is as follows: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

This is the response I got in the Teahouse to this question:

"Meredith - you seem to have been working hard - so I checked every reference to see just how hard you had been working. Fair's fair. It looks as if all is in order, present and correct....Meredith, I've had a look too and the way in which you are using those sources doesn't worry me at all - they are simply factual and you are not trying to interpret them in any way. "

I wish you would remove the flag in the article about misuse of primary sources. Thank you. Meredith at DBA (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Edit[edit]

Due to the perception of a COI, I believe it would be best if another editor could make these changes. Thank you. {{Request edit}}

  1. Please remove the word "creative" from the first sentence under Projects.
  2. Please remove this sentence: "The practice has received numerous awards for its work".
  3. Please advise how best to clarify the partners and principals of the firm. This link would show the people and their relationship: http://dberke.com/office/profile_pp.htm Also, I have noticed that the photo credit for the Tyler School of Art that has appeared on the page cites Marc Leff and Maitland Jones, the two partners. Can this somehow be part of the clarification?
  4. Current projects are projects that are currently in design (explanation above).

Meredith at DBA (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I moved the requested edit section from above, as it would otherwise be ignored (WP trains editors to expect the newest discussion to be at the bottom). I've updated the article in some of the ways you suggested. To respond to each of your points:
  1. Done.
  2. You didn't say why you wanted this sentence removed, and it's a regular part of writing to have the first sentence of a paragraph lead into the remainder. My guess is that you objected to the {{when}} tag on that sentence, not to the sentence itself.

    As I wrote above, the tag itself contains a message saying that it's not about the sentence, but rather, about the section—so simply deleting the sentence wouldn't improve the section at all.

    I tried it your way, and the end result was this:

    The 21c Museum Hotel (2006) in Louisville, Kentucky won the American Institute of Architects Kentucky Honor Award in 2011,[1][non-primary source needed] the AIA NYS Excellence for Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse in 2007,[2][non-primary source needed] and the Best of Year Award for Hospitality Design, Interior Design Magazine, in 2006.[3][non-primary source needed] Deborah Berke & Partners Architects won an AIA NYS Award of Merit for the Marianne Boesky Gallery in 2009.[4][non-primary source needed] In 2009 the Irwin Union Bank was awarded a Citation for Design by AIA NYS[2][non-primary source needed] and an AIA NY Merit Award for Architecture.[5][non-primary source needed] In 2007, the James Hotel Chicago earned a Citation for Interiors from the AIA NYS[4][non-primary source needed] and the firm was awarded the Hospitality Design Award for Creative Achievement, Hotel Luxury, by Hospitality Design.[citation needed] The firm received AIA NY Design awards for Box Studios (2004),[6][non-primary source needed] the Baron Loft (2001),[7][non-primary source needed] and the Howell Loft (1999).[citation needed] In 2012, 48 Bond Street received an Award of Excellence from the Society of American Registered Architects NY Council.[8][non-primary source needed]

    I believe you'll agree with me that that is a monstrosity.

    So, what's left? One subtle inline tag doesn't work for you, and multiple in-your-face inline tags doesn't work for anyone. The only thing I can think to fall back on is the WP-standard {{primary sources|section}} tag I referred to above, so I've done that.

  3. I thought I'd answered this yesterday, when I wrote (about the partner's info),

    Independent third-party sources are what's needed here. If you have them, please post them! The problem is that everything in the lead is supposed to be supported in the body of the article, and there's nothing in the body about the makeup of the firm.

    and (about the "photo credit"),

    I'm not sure what you meant by this. If you're referring to the infobox, the names show as partners under the Practice information section. It's not a photo credit.

    About all I can guess now is that you don't like the infobox listing the partners as partners, so I've removed them. I think it makes the article worse, personally, and the names could be re-added at any point by any editor, so I don't quite get the point, but I have removed them.
  4. I'm not sure that you read my previous response to this, as you aren't clear as to what it is you're requesting and you didn't ask any questions about my statement that

    unfortunately, "current" doesn't work well in an encyclopedia (see WP:As of). Even if it began with "As of May 2012," the "Current projects" section will (by definition) become out of date in the future as each project ends.

    I've added the {{As of}} to the section, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue in the long run. If there's something specific that you want, please ask, and we can discuss it.
And as I said before:

Got any other questions? Just ask…

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Honor Awards". AIA KY. 2011.
  2. ^ a b "Design Awards Layout". AIA NYS. 2007.
  3. ^ "Best of Year Awards". Interior Design. 2006.
  4. ^ a b "Design Awards". AIA NYS. 2008.
  5. ^ "Design Awards Winners" (PDF). AIA NY. 2009.
  6. ^ "Design Awards Winners - Interiors". AIA NY. 2004.
  7. ^ "Design Awards Winners - Interior Architecture". AIA NY. 2001.
  8. ^ "17th Annual Design Awards Recipients". SARA New York Council. 2012. Retrieved 8 May 2012.

Use of Primary Sources for Awards Citation[edit]

The article, Deborah Berke & Partners Architects cites thirteen (13) specific examples of the firm receiving an award. These awards are listed as a statement of fact, without any interpretation or exceptional claim. The Policy on using primary sources is as follows:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

In conducting additional research on Wikipedia, I have found the following articles list awards with only primary references, and in some cases, no references at all:

I believe the awards citations, as currently listed on the Deborah Berke & Partners Architects article, meet the requirements of the Primary Sources for references. Thank you. Meredith at DBA (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the {{primary sources}} tag is I suggest innappropriate - the references given do nothing except state straight forward information about awards won by the company. There is no attempt to interpret or synthesise anything else from that information. The section could be better presented e.g. bulleted list and efforts to find secondary sources found (although I suspect that even trade journals would report little more than the awaridng bodies do themselves) but the sources given to verify the information presented and are better than no source. NtheP (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying text in the article per an inline comment[edit]

Hello, In an effort to clarify the firm organization and leadership in the Deborah Berke & Partners Architects article: Deborah Berke & Partners Architects is a New York City-based architecture and interior design firm founded by Deborah Berke and led by Berke, two partners: Maitland Jones and Marc Leff, and two principals: Stephen Brockman and Caroline Whartone. For more information about the partners and principals of the firm, Deborah Berke & Partners Architects, one can look at the leadership bio's on the firm website: http://www.dberke.com/office/profile_pp.htm

In addition, a secondary source of this information is the American Institute of Architects (AIA) NY Chapter Directory: http://aiany.aiany.org/index.php?section=firm-directory&cmpid=3227&filter=type&typid=2037

Thank you

Meredith at DBA (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources Discussion - Suggested Edit[edit]

Dear WP Editors, Based on the User Talk feedback to date, I wonder if the paragraph format of the awards section of this article Deborah Berke & Partners Architects is at issue with the primary sources (the article is following Wikipedia Rules for Primary Sources Wikipedia:No original research: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.").

If so, perhaps the paragraph could be restructured as such:

The practice has received numerous awards for its work including:


  1. ^ "Honor Awards". AIA KY. 2011.
  2. ^ "Design Awards Layout". AIA NYS. 2007.
  3. ^ "Best of Year Awards". Interior Design. 2006.
  4. ^ a b "Design Awards". AIA NYS. 2008.
  5. ^ "AIA NYS Chapter Design Awards 2009". 2009. Retrieved 16 May 2012.
  6. ^ "Design Awards Winners" (PDF). AIA NY. 2009.
  7. ^ "Design Awards Winners - Interiors". AIA NY. 2004.
  8. ^ "Design Awards Winners - Interior Architecture". AIA NY. 2001.
  9. ^ "17th Annual Design Awards Recipients". SARA New York Council. 2012. Retrieved 8 May 2012.
  10. ^ "Cooper Hewitt National Design Awards Finalists". Cooper–Hewitt, National Design Museum. 2008. Retrieved 8 May 2012.

Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources - what to do about Awards?[edit]

Please advise what is the best way to solve the primary sources issue with the awards list in this article Deborah Berke & Partners Architects. Only primary sources exist for those facts. If this is not adequate, then perhaps the section needs to be removed. Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest only keeping mention of those awards that have been mentioned in independent reliable soruces. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge, what is the basis of that suggestion? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The basis is that awards that have not been mentioned in independent reliable sources, will only have been mentioned in primary sources. This leads to the template/tag that were added to that section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY allows for primary sources to be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements. Primary sources should not be interpreted by an editor, that is the job of secondary sources. {{Primary sources}} should only be used if an article is making interpretations based on primary sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the documentation for the template, nor WP:PRIMARY, say that.
What WP:PRIMARY does say is "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided". This is an entire section that's based purely on primary sources!
WP:PRIMARY also says "be cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. Again, this is an entire section, making up a large proportion of the article, based entirely on primary sources.
WP:PRIMARY also says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source"; the word "numerous" is an interpretative claim here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "numerous" was removed. WP:PRIMARY also states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Every example is a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact. Any person can easily follow the link to say the source for the interior design award and verify that it is true. In addition, it says to be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources, it doesn't say to avoid it completely. That is because large passages based on primary sources become a cesspool of original research. The entire purpose of WP:PRIMARY is to avoid original research. In this case, there is no original research in the awards section, unless you want to make a case for the new intro sentence. If so, I suggest that you discuss that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed here. The text "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make..." is a necessary condition for including statements based on primary sources; it is not a sufficient condition for including statements based on primary sources. (See Necessity and sufficiency). This is particularly indicated by the word "only". If the sentence means what you are reading it to mean, then it would be phrased "A primary source can always be used on Wikipedia if it makes..."
In particular, the "may only be used" sentence does not in any way contradict the "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided" or the "be cautious about basing large passages on" clause. Material needs to meet all these requirements to be encyclopedic; you can't just use one or two clauses to try to argue that the other clauses do not apply.
Sure, the section doesn't contain any original research right now, but it did until the word "numerous" was removed, and there's every reason to think that permitting large portions of articles to be based on primary sources is likely to encourage the addition of original research in the future.
And we have this; "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." So, let's discuss it.
Looking at the first primary source being used to back inclusion of an award, it seems the "AIA Kentucky" made thirteen "Honor Awards" in 2011, and it also made eight "Special Awards". On their website we can see that they do this every year, in fact their website has details of their annual awards going right back to 1960. Since DB & Partners has been in existence since 1982, that's over 600 awards just from this one organisation, that DB & Partners could have won.
But that's not all! Kentucky AIA is just a chapter of the AIA, we can readily presume there is a similar chapter in every state of the USA (actually it's many more chapters than that, but let's keep things simple). So 50 x 600 = maybe thirty thousand of these sorts of awards being given out during the time that DB & Partners has been in business. That's an awful lot of awards, don't you think? Not to mention, AIA chapters aren't the only people giving them out.
Why so many awards? Go to Kentucky AIA's "About Us" page to find some hints. Kentucky AIA has one full-time member of staff plus a "lobbyist". The other people involved in running it are all architectural professionals. In other words, this is architects giving awards to other architects, in order to promote the image of the profession and of each other. This sort of award-spam is common in many highly skilled professions, for example it has been a problem in Wikipedia articles about law firms.
But what it boils down to is hundreds of non-notable promotional organisations giving out thousands of non-notable awards. It is simply not encyclopedic. The awards in question, of course, are not notable and probably never will be. There are arguably notable architecture awards, for example the AIA Gold Medal - given out once per year, by the national organisation (which is itself notable - its chapters are not).
I could go on, but hopefully the point is clear. In any case, what Meredith has asked is how to get the "primary sources" tag removed - she is not that concerned about whether the awards section actually stays or not. The easy way to get rid of the tags is to remove the awards that are not mentioned by at least one secondary source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awards are tricky and an area where COIs often make contributions and volunteers often disagree. My advice to companies as a paid editor is along the lines of what is discussed above on including awards that are notable. The reason being that many awards are literally purchased or otherwise easy to obtain. A single award may be given to one hundred companies, which constitutes a large portion of their entire industry. As a PR professional, I have organized the purchase of an award for a few hundred dollars. Wikipedians can't be expected to evaluate the legitimacy of an award. That's what reliable sources are for. This is a matter that requires good judgment and common sense to assess what awards we can reasonably believe are worth including. User:King4057 04:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the Award of Excellence from the Society of American... costs $100 - $200[1]. Language like, "due to overwhelming demand," is more characteristic of someone selling a product than running a notable award program. The AIA awards here announces what looks like over 50 winners. The FAQ says you can make multiple submission, but you must "pay for each one individually." Legitimate awards tend to have extensive details on the selection process and strict application processes, but this one is very loose, they don't disclose the judges and the selection process appears to be very quick. Another award is merely from the New York chapter specifically and may not be significant. I'm not saying the awards are or aren't significant/legitimate, merely that reliable sources is the only measure we have to evaluate them. User:King4057 04:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David. I am always very impressed by your work and advice. Could you consider paring the article of its non-notable awards? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking through them, and there are two I think we should include:
  • Best Projects and Products of 2006 by Interior Design. The award is published by an independent news organization Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Common sense supports it as well. It has 800 submissions, but only ~20 winners. It details the selection process.[2] Note, it also has a $300 submission fee, but being a profitable enterprise doesn't make an award non-legitimate by default.
  • The American Institute of Architects appears to be a notable organization and the Design Award they won in 2009[3] is generally the subject of significant media coverage.[4][5].
The other awards are mostly given by specific chapters of the American Institute of Architects in New York and Kentucky. Their association with the AIA suggests they are legitimate, but probably not significant. I think it is appropriate to say they have won "several" regional and national awards, perhaps even mentioning the AIA, but without going into detail on each one. User:King4057 06:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous awards[edit]

Bilby just removed the term numerous from "The practice has received numerous awards for its work." While I understand the thought behind it (numerous is a subjective term, it is not supported with an inline citation, one person may look at numerous differently than another), I don't think it improved the section. The statement "The practice has received awards for its work" just sounds bad. Personally, I believe that numerous does apply, I counted 13. Does anybody have any thoughts on how we can rework the intro to that section, or would anybody be terribly opposed to me restoring the word numerous? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that numerous just sounds automatically non-neutral. I agree that the resulting statement is now a bit ugly, but adding back the term seems to change the problem, rather than removing one. Perhaps rewording is viable. Or just a list instead of prose? - Bilby (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Request edit}} re: Clarify ownership/leadership structure of firm[edit]

{{Request edit}}

Clarify ownership/leadership structure of firm[edit]

Based on Nthep and Ryan Vesey's Teahouse comments, I would recommend one of the following actions to clarify the leadership structure of the firm in the first sentence of the article Deborah Berke & Partners Architects.

  • Deborah Berke & Partners Architects is a New York City-based architecture and interior design firm founded by Deborah Berke and led by Berke, two partners, Maitland Jones and Marc Leff, and two principals, Stephen Brockman and Caroline Wharton.

OR If that is not acceptable, then quoting Nthep talk "On the point of the partners, I can think of two things. One, drop it from the text altogether leaving it as Deborah Berke is the principal partner in the firm (this could be referenced to the firm's own website)."

  • Deborah Berke & Partners Architects is a New York City-based architecture and interior design firm founded by Deborah Berke.

I think naming the leadership team (Maitland Jones, Marc Leff, Stephen Brockman, Caroline Wharton) in addition to Deborah Berke is the most truthful and factual way to list it.

Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that naming the partners would be better, but I would like to see what caused this edit before I consider restoring the names of the partners. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the partners was never in the first sentence. If this would have helped "clarify" the sentence, it would have been a requested edit. In the comments "Thank you for moving your comments inline; Proposed additional changes", in an ettempt to omit the "clarify" comment, I thought as proof that there are 2 partners and 2 principals, I pointed out the infobox contained their names. That comment was misunderstood and the names were then omitted from the infobox. You can see that thread in the same conversation box, in comments by Dori Smith. I hope this helps. Thank you. Meredith at DBA (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC) " {{Requested Edit}}Would it be possible to add the partners' and principals' names to this sentence to clarify it? As: "Deborah Berke & Partners Architects is a New York City-based architecture and interior design firm founded by Deborah Berke and led by Berke, two partners, Maitland Jones and Marc Leff, and two principals, Stephen Brockman and Caroline Wharton." Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? You said that it could be sourced by the official website, but in my quick search I didn't see the info there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided is the AIA American Institute of Architects New York Chapter Directory. Here is a link to the firm listing, which lists the Owners/Partners: Deborah Berke, FAIA, LEED AP; Maitland Jones, AIA, LEED AP; Marc Leff, AIA, LEED AP. Unfortunately this directory does not list the principals: Caroline Wharton and Stephen Brockman. http://aiany.aiany.org/index.php?section=firm-directory&cmpid=3227&filter=type&typid=2037

Here is an independent source for Stephen Brockman, Principal: http://www.irhawards.com/jury/Stephen_Brockman.php Thanks Meredith at DBA (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information. Please look for a source for Caroline Wharton. If you find it you can feel free to put it in yourself, it isn't controversial at all so no edit request is needed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ryan. Thank you very much. Meredith at DBA (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading[edit]

The further reading section is far too extensive. In the interests of paring it down, I will remove all those that don't have links except for "Filler, Martin (March 2001). "Deborah Berke". House Beautiful." unless someone says otherwise in the next 24 hours. I will then start examining the linked ones. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance the Further Reading section looks like an attempt at a references list. For example, this WSJ article could be used to provide an inline citation for several of the projects. It also has some information on Deborah Berke and her design philosophy, which I think is interesting and compelling context. Failing any willingness to incorporate these sources into the article, it would be great to preserve them on the Talk page to encourage other editors to add them. The list may not belong on the page in its current format, but it has a lot of value in helping improve the article. User:King4057 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking at it in its current state, I had just removed a lot of sections. The problem was the list was massive and a majority of them didn't have URL's. I'll add those that I removed to the talk page so that if anybody can come across an article in real life, they can decide if its really worth adding. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misattribution of Architect for The Tyler School of Art at Temple University in Article Infobox[edit]

{{Requested edit}} The infobox on the Deborah Berke & Partners Architects article misattributes the Tyler School of Art at Temple University as having been designed by Deborah Berke & Partners Architects. Deborah Berke & Partners Architects provided master planning, programming, site analysis and conceptual design services, but they did not design the new building. The School commissioned architectural services in 2005 and selected Carlos Jimenez in collaboration with H2L2. The facility opened in 2008.

For reliable, independent reference proving this information, please look at the following links: http://www.temple.edu/tyler/newtyler/index.html This article states: "The Future of Tyler will be at the center of a vibrant urban creative community, rich with opportunities for inspiration, exhibition, collaboration and cross-disciplinary connection. The new facility and the new location will help Tyler to compete more strongly for faculty, students, and national recognition against other top ranked schools of art.

Designed by architect Carlos Jimenez of Carlos Jimenez Studio in Houston, in collaboration with the Philadelphia based architecture firm, H2L2, the new building at 12th and Norris Streets offers 40 percent more space than the School’s previous facilities. Read more on Carlos Jimenez in the Temple Times Article, "Architect Selected for Tyler Building" from January 2005."

That article is here: http://www.temple.edu/temple_times/1-27-05/jimenez.html

Also, the website of the architect H2L2: http://www.h2l2.com/architecture_gallery_13.php Thank you. Meredith at DBA (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have removed the information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


{{Requested edit}} the infobox with the picture on the right side of the article still shows the Tyler School of Art at Temple University. Deborah Berke & Partners Architects did not design this building. thank you. 67.85.225.12 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, I should have caught that. I replaced it with an image of the Yale School of Art. Do you have any issue with this? In addition, Tyler School of Art is still listed as a project of DBA, is this acceptable and should it be added to the infobox as a project? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, it's perfect. Thank you so much. Meredith at DBA (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deborah Berke & Partners Architects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deborah Berke & Partners Architects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deborah_Berke_Partners&oldid=1206911455"