Talk:MBH Architects

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm assessing this as a "low" importance for the architecture project. It sounds like a mid-sized firm that has done a number of important projects, so perhaps someone better acquainted with architecture could decide whether they're really of "mid" importance in that world. Also, I've done a little bit of clean-up. The article previously read like a promotional brochure. Architecture studios, musicians, and restaurants may call themselves "award winning" and list all their prizes and commissions but with few exceptions those don't mean a whole lot to the reader. A more balanced, useful article will give the reader a quick understanding of what the business is - where located, how large, what they do, its history, personnel, major business events, influences, styles, and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

A bit of background first. Looking at its contribution history, this article seems to have been almost entirely created by people with an interest in the company. Certainly the IP 75.58.21.34 is registered to it, and there's no evidence to suggest that the other single-purpose accounts that have added most of its content were not also connected with it. As a result the article had become too much of a PR piece for the company and anyone familiar with Wikipedia would know that it needed improving. The fact that no-one had made any significant efforts at improvement since Wikidemon's in Oct 2009 (see above) suggests its relative unimportance - something to bear in mind.

After one of Rachel Baber's edits to the article popped up while I was vandal-fighting I thought it would be useful to start cleaning it up and I made three significant edits on 8 April to that end, reducing it by about half.

Now I don't know if you had some problem with page updating, Goodvac, but your last edits to the article removed mine as well as other apparently correct updates made by Rachel Baber. Maybe my approach is less bold than yours, but I'm going to revert back to my version and I hope we can all work towards a consensus version that has a bit more relevant content than the stub you've chopped it down to, though I'm tending to agree that in view of the lack of interest in it here, and the relative paucity of online information, it is still too long. —SMALL JIM 12:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your edits that I found unfavorable; it was the poor condition of the article at the time that prompted me to delete wholesale unsourced, POV statements. Furthermore, I did not realize that you planned to do further cleanup, or I would have waited to see what became of your work. It would be great if we could shape this into a well-referenced article. However, I think we should start from scratch because of all the current sources, excluding the ones from MBH's website, only [1] mentions MBH in some depth. Goodvac (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced a few more facts now, and since I seem to be doing most of the editing, I hope you won't object if we continue to work with the existing article structure, rather than starting again from scratch as you suggest. I think the appropriate size and structure will become evident once we've cited everything we can (I don't think it's right yet), and the remaining irrelevancies and uncitable statements can go then. Do you have access to any other likely reference sources? Don't look on this as an attempt to distract your attention, but in the meantime if you want to hack away at a really bad article, with likely copvios too, have a look at Wax Museum at Fishermans Wharf :) —SMALL JIM 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. You can try to reference all you can in the article and then start deleting unsourced assertions. Some sources that you may find useful are [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I'll leave the job of cleaning up this article to you, unless you want any help. Good luck! Goodvac (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links - I've worked some of them in. Actually, I've been quite surprised by how much info there is about the company online. It takes a bit of digging, but I've managed to reference almost everything I've looked for so far. Anyway. I've finished with it, even though it's nowhere near perfect. Now - that wax museum... —SMALL JIM 12:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MBH Architects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050405030406/http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us:80/light/conserve/sustainability/studies/cv5_ss.htm to http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/conserve/sustainability/studies/cv5_ss.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MBH 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc
Corrected formatting/usage for http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505194313/http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/Rincon_Hill.htm to http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/Rincon_Hill.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on MBH 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]