Talk:Liebenberg and Kaplan

Ready to publish?
Today I added two more photos to the article, as well as some new information on two of the buildings that were mentioned in the info box. I think the article is ready to publish. Thanks. KIRTIS (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead section
Marchjuly makes a good point. I ended up with a lot more detail, especially about the firm's residential projects, than I originally anticipated for the lead section. I will move part of it into a new section devoted to residential properties. KIRTIS (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead section of an article should basically be a summary of the main points that come later in the article. I think it's fine to mention some of the noted designs in the article by name, but details such as street address, dates of construction, how long a congregation has used a building, etc. are more suited for later in the article, if at all. Excessive detail like this needs to be used cautiously per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and only the really relevant information should be included. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17 am, Today (UTC+9)
 * Please review and let me know if you think further changes are needed. Thanks. --KIRTIS KIRTIS (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've was bold and made some more changes. Maybe I was too bold, but I think the lead should summarize content covered in the rest of the article and not be the sole mention of such content. Maybe it's fine to mention the more Wikipedia notable projects of the firm by name in the lead, but we should really be listing them just to list them. I think it's best to keep the details in the body of the article in the relevant subsections and use the lead as a preview of what's to come.
 * Adding more content to the body of the article should be done with balance. It's better to expand subsections by including what reliable sources say specifically about this firm's designs then add seemingly trivial information like street addresses, when a building was razed, how long a congregation used it, etc. which has little encyclopedic value to the reader in my opinion in this particular article. Details of that nature should be in stand-alone articles about the respective building/residence (if such articles exist), or perhaps bullet list of "Notable projects" (sort of like a discography/bibliography for architects), like is done in Frank Lloyd Wright, if there's enough items to fill out such a list. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just made one more minor edit and forgot to sign in (adding St. Olaf Hospital in Austin). Sorry. I will need to do some more work as a result of Marchjuly's edits. Will review and refine tomorrow (e.g. use of pronoun rather than the name of the firm). Will think about the above suggestions. Thanks.KIRTIS (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Coatracking
There seems to be lots of extraneous information being added (at least in my opinion) which is not really essential to understanding the subject of the article. Since a firm such as this seems to be essentially equal to the individual partners who found it and bring it to prominence, some biographical information about such people seems fine. However, care should be taken so that the article does not morph into sort of a "coatrack" type of article for people or buildings associated with the firm. If any of these subjects are Wikipedia notable enough for a stub/article to be created, then maybe create it add more details there. If there are existing articles about some of the topics, then add more details to those article. This article should try and stay focused on L&K, its style of architecture and any lasting impact it has on the community and architecture in general (as discussed in reliable sources). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

L&K or Liebenberg and Kaplan
If the firm is commonly referred to as "L&K", then it seems fine to do so in this article. It seems clear from the first sentence that "L&K" stand for "Liebenberg and Kaplan", so doing so should not be confusing to the reader. As long as every sentence doesn't begin with "L&K", I think it's OK to use this instead of the full-name as the primary mention at the beginning of each section or paragraph, and then "the firm" and "it" (or "they" depending on your perspective and context) should be used for subsequent mentions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Births, rebirths, and deaths
"Births, rebirths and deaths" does really seem like a good title for a section about an architecture firm and seems a tad bit promotional sounding and peacocky. "Later years" might not be good, but I think it's the better of the two. What about something like "Notable designs", "Notable structures" or maybe even "Legacy" though the last one sounds a bit PR-ish too. Wikipedia articles should use simple direct expressions. We don't say people pass away on Wikipedia, we say they die. In the same manner we shouldn't say buildings are born and die, but rather they are built or demolished per WP:EUPHEMISM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Marchjuly, for this input (and thank you for not changing it but starting this discussion). I appreciate your advice and I will try to think of a better way. When I initially wrote the article I titled this section "Later Years" because it was about some of the buildings built in the 1960s and '70s and not covered above. It has morphed into a section about what is gone (most of the theaters) and what remains (homes, apartment buildings, houses of worship, and hospitals). Let's see if other editors have any suggestions for a better title for this section, and I will think about it as well. Thanks again for all your work on this article and for helping me in learning more about Wiki standards and conventions. 2601:442:C100:226E:A9F5:4FDF:6903:A71C (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)KIRTIS (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the section "Legacy" until someone thinks of a better name for it. That's a fairly common section in biographical articles. Jonathunder (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible additions
The Minnesota Hotel which stood at Washington and Second Avenues in Minneapolis from 1924 to 1963 was an L&K project.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIRTIS (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Following the success of the Terrace Theatre, Dr. Harvey Nelson called on L&K to design his family residence in the Tyrol Hills section of Golden Valley. The large home, which stands on a high-banked lot, exemplifies the classic Midcentury Modern raised ranch or split entry style. It features large windows, dramatic spaces, and high-quality materials similar to those of the Terrace: brick, redwood, birch, oak, and slate. Its glass-enclosed foyer, with broad steps leading down to the lower level and up to the main living space, has been described as "theatrical."KIRTIS (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Sheltering Home
The large, Goergian-style red-brick building designed by L&K for the Jewish Sheltering Home for Children in North Minneapolis (founded in 1918) opened in 1934 and remained in service until 1964; in 1997 it became the home of the nonprofit organization Avenues for Homeless Youth.KIRTIS (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Existence?
Maybe it's just me, but I can't tell from the article whether the firm still exists. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not. I will try rewording the intro a bit to make that more clear. Thanks for the feedback. Jonathunder (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liebenberg and Kaplan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170108033053/http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=heritagelandmarks_countryclub to http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=heritagelandmarks_countryclub

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)