Draft talk:Office for Visual Interaction (OVI)

General comments - NOT an AfC review
Some general comments - not a review.
 * It's a company article which has 3 sources that are the company itself. It's much better to use independent sources.
 * It has some unsourced, promotional language, e.g. "to develop custom luminaires that incorporate bespoke finishes, new fabrication techniques, and emerging light sources meant to achieve economy of work". (If that wasn't written by someone who works for the company, I'm a Dutchman.)
 * It has some future-gazing - the first two Notable works appear not to have been completed yet.
 * Sections lack sourcing - e.g. the entire "Notable works" section. And without sources, who is to say they are notable? And what contribution OVI made?
 * Some sources lack page numbers. Where, in the 212 page trade magazine that is Source 2, does the quote appear?
 * Some of the awards look dubious. The Scottish Parliament won the Stirling. Did its lighting? The Guardian article doesn't mention OVI. Ditto for the Rosenthal Centre.
 * The Rookery, Chicago is wrongly linked to the disambiguation page.
 * You’ve got two embedded external links in the Notable buildings section, Meixi Urban Helix/New York City Streetlight. We don’t do links like this.
 * Cite 18 - you should indicate this source is German language.
 * Are you connected to OVI? If you are, you should read this.

Hope these are useful. KJP1 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!
Really appreciate the suggestions. Thanks for taking the time. RedMars GreenMars (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)