![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 41 Cooper Square was copied or moved into Thom Mayne with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article reads like a promotional brochure for this building rather than encyclopedic fact. In particular, it omits the significant community opposition to the building and its suitability for the neighborhood, as well as faculty and student dissatisfaction with the emphasis of form over function. I'm not sure whether a Criticisms section would be appropriate, since much of the criticism is well-known amongst the Cooper community yet still non-citeable hearsay, but I feel this article still needs some NPoV work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.126.149 ( talk) 16:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, if the section needs to be worked on to keep it in line with policy, that's fine, but neither side is going to be allowed to skew it one way or the other. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is this section included when Thom Mayne has his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticete ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section, "41 Cooper Square incorporates sustainable technologies into the function and architecture of the building," is quite objectionable. There is no explanation of what is meant by the sentence and no source for the information (judgment?) is given. It is a sad example of how the term "sustainable" may have become a buzzword devoid of real content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikslen ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 41 Cooper Square was copied or moved into Thom Mayne with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article reads like a promotional brochure for this building rather than encyclopedic fact. In particular, it omits the significant community opposition to the building and its suitability for the neighborhood, as well as faculty and student dissatisfaction with the emphasis of form over function. I'm not sure whether a Criticisms section would be appropriate, since much of the criticism is well-known amongst the Cooper community yet still non-citeable hearsay, but I feel this article still needs some NPoV work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.126.149 ( talk) 16:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, if the section needs to be worked on to keep it in line with policy, that's fine, but neither side is going to be allowed to skew it one way or the other. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is this section included when Thom Mayne has his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticete ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section, "41 Cooper Square incorporates sustainable technologies into the function and architecture of the building," is quite objectionable. There is no explanation of what is meant by the sentence and no source for the information (judgment?) is given. It is a sad example of how the term "sustainable" may have become a buzzword devoid of real content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikslen ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)