Talk:Marmol Radziner

Conflict of Interest (COI) and other concerns

A major contributor to this article Amy at Marmol Radziner states on their talk page that they "Serve in a marketing role at the firm Marmol Radziner 2014", and their contributions are entirely related to this business. They have not explicitly engaged other editors, on article talk pages or by edit summary, regarding their apparent COI while, before or after editing.

The article currently reads like a glossy in-house publication to show off at board meetings, and considering the COI of a major contributor, I'm not surprised. There is a heavy use of only a few niche (root) sources; a single source, the Architectural Digest, carrying a lot of the load.

Considering the glossy tone (lack of neutrality), Conflict of Interest and heavy use of a single niche source, I am leaning toward considering this as lacking notability. It strikes me that statements like the list of clients is there in order to attempt inherited notability (whether truly the case, it's certainly cheesy).

I have tagged the page with {{Multiple issues| {{Advert|date=July 2019}} {{POV|date=July 2019}} {{COI|date=July 2019}} }} and I am watching the article, and therefore this talk (of course). Incidentally; I have no particular interest in this company, and only discovered this article via random article browsing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: I already performed a COI cleanup of this article a few years ago, including some necessary reorganization of the page and addition of sources supporting various previously unsupported claims on the page. I did not engage User:Amy at Marmol Radziner at the time because they had clearly already left Wikipedia. I did, I think, a reasonably thorough search to confirm that the article was not omitting any negative or critical information about the subject. Of course, I would not have bothered to put in the effort if I was not satisfied that the subject is notable. With respect to coverage, I don't see why it would be a problem to have a substantial number of references to Architectural Digest, a reliable source that is a leader for this purpose in the subject's field. However, I also note that there are numerous references to the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, and other reliable sources such as The Independent, Los Angeles Magazine, the Los Angeles Downtown News, and Variety. Are there any specific claims in the article that you feel are inadequately sourced, or any items of information that you feel have been omitted from the article? I would be glad to correct any omissions, but I am also confident that I have sufficiently addressed any COI concerns in the article through sourcing and confirmation of claims, and I would be inclined to untag the page accordingly. bd2412 T 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: Would you say this revision of yours could be fairly considered "the last date that a neutral editor checked the edits of all known connected contributors for neutrality" (from {{Connected contributor}})? If so, and if I am not remiss in my search and correctly understand that this template should remain in place to inform readers of the issue, we should add the information to the template with the |checked= parameter and leave it where it is.

My concern about the number of Architectural Digest refs is not in their number but in the proportion of them to the total ref count; 14 of 46 is a substantial reliance on a single source. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but it is my understanding that notability is derived from general coverage of the subject, not niche. I accept that there are other refs(multiple Curbed and an Elle Decor included), and made no claim otherwise. I stand by my opinion that it reads as promotional.

That the article was heavily influenced by a declared COI editor, whose account appears to be single use, isn't something I am comfortable with being hidden by omission of the declaration where readers are likely to see it. If there is no concern, then the heads up shouldn't be considered embarrassing; we owe the readers the information.

Considering the editor claims to have been working "in a marketing role", I think it was politely cautious of me to not use {{Connected contributor (paid)}}, which in all fairness is something that should definitely be clearly stated where known. As WP:COI states: "[COI] undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted" and goes on (as I'm sure you're aware) to discuss the importance of disclosure.

No I do not think that this COI template should be removed; its |checked= parameter should be used correctly.

I dispute the neutrality of the article due to the COI and promotional tone; it's difficult to trust an article which is so strongly influenced by editors with a clear conflict of interest. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Misunderstanding: Hang on; by inclined to untag the page you meant the maintenance tag on the article page, not the COI declaration on this page? If that's the case, then yeah sure. Sorry *derp*. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As to "substantial reliance on a single source", that is a policy invoked when virtually the entirety of an article relies on a single source, and no other sources are provided to show notability. Please review WP:SINGLESOURCE. There is no basis in policy to raise concerns over the fact that a mere two-thirds of the sources are references to other clearly reliable sources. In any case, we would certainly not remove facts cited to a reliable source merely because that source is used to support other facts in the article.

As to the other matters, we do not keep a COI tag forever merely because edits were made at some point by an editor with a COI. The tag is there to prompt other editors to fix problems with the page. This is not, for example, a copyright issue. There is no requirement that accurate content introduced by a conflicted editor must be removed, or that every word written by the conflicted editor must be changed to some synonym to avoid reflecting their wording. The point is for the content to be checked and for inaccurate or unsupported claims to be removed. Most of the content now in the article is what was written by me in my rewrite process, which I undertook specifically to address the COI, as I have frequently done in article patrols. Whatever is left from previous editors is generally there because I reviewed it and found sourcing to support it. I stand by my work. If the article seems to paint the subject in a positive light, that is because this accurately reflects the sources following a diligent search for information from all sides (and to a reasonable degree, quotes the sources). To do otherwise would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE, to make the subject seem less well-received than the sources indicate merely because accurately reporting what the sources say appears to be overly positive. bd2412 T 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please make clear which "tag" you are referring to; {{Connected contributor}} on this talk page, or {{COI}} on the article page? As I already said, "yeah sure" {{COI}} can be removed since you've addressed any concerns during your check, and I have no reason to doubt your integrity. Please also bare in mind that as stated I am leaning toward considering this as lacking notability, not "certain and gravely concerned" and only mentioned the strong use of a single source. I did not tag the article as having notability issues or as relying on a single source on purpose. I'm glad you have checked the article's COI and will be happy to see {{COI}} removed from the article; I still (although I see you're editing again) think the article deserves its {{Advert}} but concede that the {{POV}} is probably fine if you say so (simply because I feel like you're angry and getting angrier, and I'd rather be somewhere else). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant the tag(s) on the article only. Per the above I will remove them. I am not angry, but a bit frustrated, given the work I put into improving this page. Thanks for your vote of confidence in my integrity, however. I do try to maintain it. bd2412 T

I see the question about sourcing on the WikiProject Company page. I don't think it would be excessive to use the same source, as long as it is not the same reference. It looks like there are several different references from the same source. Also, there are also many from other sources which are reliable and meet the standards for company articles. I would be far more concerned if this was the ONLY source used throughout the page. As far as notability, I believe this would fly with passing colors based on a brief search of the sources available. Finally, while I understand (and greatly agree) that promotion comes by way of editors influenced by a COI, that concern seems to have been addressed by BD2412. I don't see anything in the current page that would raise a concern for advertising or COI given the cleanup done by BD2412. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

2020 COI

I noticed this page since I'm working on a draft of an article for a project to which they contributed, and I searched to see if they had a page to link to. DGG, I think your recent move of this page to draftspace was a bad call. There are certainly NPOV issues, but they're not so severe that an advert tag doesn't cover them; having 50 references and having received a review from a respected neutral editor (BD2412) is enough to convince me this is okay for mainspace. Our readers are better served by having the page with the caveat at the top than by having nothing at all. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

judgement can vary, there is more than one way to handle thing, and neither I nor any one person here makes final decisions. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, this raises the issue of how to write a reasonably interesting and narratively well-organized article on a clearly notable entity (whether it be an individual, a company, a movement, etc.) where the sources that are available tend to be laudatory of the subject. The things that I expect would be pointed out as sounding "promotional" in this case, such as listing the services that the company provides, describing responses to noteworthy projects they have worked on, and listing awards that they have won, are things that can not be removed from the article without making it less accurate and less informative. I would actually direct this to Skdb also - how can the article be changed to sound NPOV without actually making it less accurate (or, at least, less readable). BD2412 T 01:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DGG and BD2412: Here is the stab I just took at the lead. It was basically a copy edit to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's tone/style. It's hard to say exactly why switches like "offers a full range of services" to "offers various services" make it sound more NPOV, but something about those helps just with moving toward an encyclopedic tone, even if there's not a big content distinction. Also, one other thing for the lead, I'd recommend shortening the list of services provided if we can figure out which ones are the most important and keep only those, so that it reads less like a product catalog. (Do they really do all that much jewelry design? I'm skeptical, but I don't want to remove it until I have more than just my intuition to go off of.)

Regarding your larger question, BD2412, that's a good one. I'd say that if all the reliable sources are laudatory, then the article should be too (quoting them rather than in our voice, ofc), just as we would for an acclaimed film/well-respected artist; see WP:SUBJECTIVE. But if the issue is more that there are a bunch of non-reliable sources providing laudatory details that are true but aren't found in RS, the better course of action might be to remove those sources and the details that came with them, even if it makes the article less comprehensive as a result; there's nothing wrong with a well-written permastub.

This isn't an article that I feel warrants a ton of our time (both because of low readership and because of WP:BOGOF concerns), but enough work has already been put into it that I think a soft deletion through draftification would be a sad outcome. I don't fault you for making a good-faith judgement to draftify, DGG, but I do think it's more than just a choice of several equally appropriate ways to handle an issue — when considering draftifying, we need to ask the "is this bad enough that it would be better to have nothing?" question, and this article seems clearly better than nothing to me. Hopefully I don't have to turn in my deletionist credentials for saying that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there are some questions to sit on and think about for a few days - I have no problem with the article remaining in draft space while it is being actively improved. As for the jewelry question, I think that it noteworthy, as there is an L.A. Times article specifically on that aspect of the subject, and (so far as I have found) it is relatively rare for an architecture firm to also have a line of jewelry. There was a source that I saw that mentioned a handful that do this, generally because they have elite reputations from which to support the extension. I don't think it would be significant enough to sustain, e.g., a separate article, but I think this article would be less informative about the subject if that was removed. BD2412 T 02:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: here is the article on high-end architecture firms branching into jewelry. I didn't include it in the group below because it is not very solid as a source, but it does make the point. BD2412 T 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, although I doubt this will satisfy DGG's concerns, I have revisited the coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and found the following more recent instances of coverage supporting the assertions presented in the article:

---

Founded in 1989 as a design-build firm with an emphasis as a "master builder," Marmol Radziner touts itself as a single-source shop offering everything from architectural drawings and construction documents to prefab, custom cabinetry, fixtures, and furniture. Employees work across multidisciplinary teams of architects, landscape designers, interior designers, furniture designers, and construction crews.

The company began manufacturing jewelry in 2010, after Radziner had the fabrication department make a cuff for his personal use designed to resemble a bracelet he had once made from found metal. Radziner's wife, Robin Cottle, who had received a Master of Fine Arts degree from the California Institute of the Arts, proposed to have that department make other pieces, which the company then began selling commercially, with Cottle as the lead designer.

An August 2019 Architectural Digest piece on a book of works by the firm stated that the firm, "fully embodies the concept of indoor-outdoor living".

In November 2019, the American Institute of Architects awarded the firm the top spot in their annual Top 50 Firms in Business, noting its substantial revenue increase over the previous year and its high per capita revenue relative to its number of employees. That same month, the firm made its first public presentation of interior renovation plans for the historic Cecil Hotel in Los Angeles, proposing to restore classical features dating from the hotel's 1924 reconstruction.

References

---

Cheers! BD2412 T 01:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

well, it's no worse than many of our promotional articles. I don't like negotiating content, though I know its our practice. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to negotiate content, I just want to avoid losing reliably sourced information just because it appears laudatory towards the subject. I get that this can appear promotional, but I think that can be avoided, perhaps through careful wording. BD2412 T 18:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to submit this to AfC, just since I want to make 100% sure that if we forget about this page it doesn't sit here for six months and then get deleted. But I'm also fine with anyone who wants to move it back to mainspace directly once they feel they've satisfactorily addressed the promotional element; I trust those of us here to make that judgement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, we've got one additional opinion from AfC, I guess. Sulfurboy, you may have missed the talk page here, but it looks as though the COI contributor did declare a connection, so I'm not sure {{Undisclosed paid}} is appropriate.^{Wait, looks like there was actually another potentially COI editor who created the page and did not disclose.} {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, the COI contributor's contributions to the page have mostly been rewritten, properly sourced, or otherwise dealt with. BD2412 T 22:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Completely missed it. I rarely if ever check a drafts talk page, as 99% of the time there's nothing there or just project pages. I would disagree with BD2412 that the contributions have been dealt with. The first line in the article, chock full of marketing doublespeak/buzz words, was more than enough to reject it:

Following the “master builder” tradition, Marmol Radziner integrates design services with a variety of construction capabilities. The firm houses a wide range of in-house skills, including architects, metal fabricators, carpenters, cabinet makers and construction crew. With its own shop services, the firm frequently designs and fabricates original furnishings specific to each project through its in-house 20,000-square-foot cabinet and metal shop located in El Segundo.

Almost all of the article is just praising the subject's work or mentioning awards. However, I'll change the rejection to a decline in light of the work you all are putting in to it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This frankly encapsulates the problem that I have been discussing all along. The article appears to be "just praising the subject's work or mentioning awards" because independent reliable sources praise the subject's work. The quoted content above is similar to what can often be found in the sources. I searched rather exhaustively for criticism of the firm, which I would have readily included if I found any. I think that part of the problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't handle architecture firms well, as architects are basically artists, but our evaluation of them focuses on their commercial performance rather than the real-world concern with their artistic merit. BD2412 T 22:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Commercial performance should be the central topic, as this is a page about a commercial enterprise.

Also, I wasn't trying to suggest that we have to dig up some negative stuff to balance it out. Instead, I was saying excluding many of the "notable" works, clients and awards is probably prudent. Many of the celebrity mentions just feels like name dropping. What encyclopedic value is added by naming every notable client they have had? What was the extent of the services? Was it just a consultation? Did they build their house? Etc. Does anyone care this firm designed a store for Elyse Walker? (whoever this is)

In the same light, how many of those awards are truly notable? E.g, does telling the audience that a sub-chapter of AIA gave the firm an award really provide any encyclopedic value? We also have awards listed that were won by the individuals who founded the firm and not the firm itself which can be misleading.

Not trying to pile on. Just spelling out my reasons that I otherwise would have rejected this article. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Commercial performance should be the central topic, as this is a page about a commercial enterprise" - I think that is exactly the crux of the dispute. Should One Direction be covered as a commercial enterprise? Should Penn & Teller or Gilbert and Sullivan? All of these collaborations have a substantial commercial aspect and an organization supporting it. Aside from the ones who are dead, if you have enough money you can literally hire them to create work for you. I don't think architects are particularly different. As for the naming of notable clients and awards, the article generally reflects what was reported sources. The whole point of notability and noteworthiness is that we don't decide what is notable; we let the reporting of information in sources reflect that. I went searching for sources, and I found what I found, which reflects the facts about the company. Now, perhaps they have designed and built a house for some other highly notable person that we don't know about, and if we learned of that through word of mouth we would exclude it for being unsourced. Coverage of their work in architectural sources tends to delve quite deeply into the unique design elements introduced to any given building. This isn't like a fast food chain or an accounting firm. BD2412 T 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "we don't decide what is notable". Wikipedia is not news and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information (e.g. we don't know the work that was done for many of these named clients, nor do we know if it was particularly notable). We do not just parrot the reporting of every award or client a company has had.

I don't know enough about One Direction or Gilbert and Sullivan to respond to the analogy, but I am actually very well acquainted with Penn and Teller. Let's look at that page and evaluate and compare it to the two main issues I have with the Radziner article, awards and clients:

Awards: The only awards listed on the Penn and Teller page are wiki-notable ones. Although, it's safe to say they have probably won hundreds, if not thousands of industry awards in their careers, a good chunk of which I'm sure got coverage by some reliable sources. This is in contrast to the listing of awards with little to no context in the Radziner article. Also, most of the awards are sourced from the people who gave the awards and not from secondary coverage and all of which from what I can tell are not wiki-notable. Some might not even be that notable in their specific industry.

Clients: We do not see any mention of notable people that Penn and Teller have performed for. I suppose you could say TV appearances or shows are "clients/notable people", but even then, at least context is given (episode numbers, their role, etc.). Without context, it's just name dropping. If I built someone's 20 story building, I could call them a client. I could also send an intern to do a quick blueprint for a greenhouse in your backyard and call you a client.

Ultimately, my recommendation would be to eliminate awards that aren't covered by sources independent of the subject and the people giving the award. I also would eliminate notable clients/projects unless there is secondary coverage giving context to the work. I'm happy to help, but I wouldn't want to come across as slash happy. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an entire article on awards and nominations received by a single Penn & Teller production. As for "clients", you could consider every TV show they have appeared on (and there are many listed in the article) as a "client", because the purpose of their appearance is to promote the appeal to customers in watching the show. Otherwise, how is their appearance on Muppets Tonight and The Bernie Mac Show and Fear Factor (and basically their entire television section) anything but name-dropping? BD2412 T 02:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your analogies are getting away from you. You're now talking about a list article about a TV production that has hundreds of uninvolved parties. Even so, all but one on that list are wiki-notable awards, and to me, it's pretty clear the one that isn't probably should be removed. And I already addressed your second point in my above reply. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reworked it a bit further to make the laudatory description a direct quote, so that it merely reflects the sources rather than being in Wikipedia's voice. I have reduced the repetitive references to star clients, with that section now leading with descriptions of the design work actually done for clients. BD2412 T 04:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That certainly addresses the concerns enough that any additional tweaking can be done in mainspace. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll step away for a few days and then revisit the page with fresh eyes. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this in the recently approved AfC queue. This is something I thought was previously discussed on the talk page. Regardless, I just marked it as reviewed. Thanks to everyone involved for the work on it. Topic is truly notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

continuing discussion

(this was discussed further on my user talk page, but it seems more relevant here, so I am copying the discussion. ):

Hi, you tagged Marmol Radziner as {{advert}}. I did a fairly massive overhaul of the page some years ago to address previously tagged editing issues. I realize that seems positively inclined towards the subject, but that merely reflects the inclination of the sources (if there was any negative reporting, I am sure that I would have found it, and would have also included it). I'm not sure how that issue can be "fixed" without removing or inaccurately reflecting sourced content. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I will not be at all put out if you disagree with my assessment. I generally write on less commercial topics for exactly the reason that it can be problematic to write a neutral-sounding piece on a commercial entity that only gets positive evaluations in the sources. BD2412 T 16:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It will take me a few days to get there. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, no deadline. It just caught my eye from being watchlisted. BD2412 T 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

BD2412. I returned to it again, and did some minor cleanup, but I think it still needs major revision to decrease name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the "name-dropping" merely reflects the coverage of the subject in the sources, and meets WP:NOTEWORTHY because of this coverage. If the article was based on, for example, a list of celebrity clients posted on the firm's website, or PR releases published in outlets without editorial control, that would be a very different matter. While it is true that some of its designs for non-famous persons have also received coverage, the firm derives some measure of its notability because of its designs for the celebrities reported. BD2412 T 22:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I see it the same, but interpret it differently. The sources are PR, covering the architects in terms not of their buildings, but their clients. But this is not of significant encyclopedic interest as far as the architectural firm is concerned, though the houses they live in might be of encyclopedic interest in the articles on the clients. If the fact that they worked for celebrity clients is relevant at all, it should not be emphasised in extended paragraphs, but a list or a table. The references and links for them will give the necessary information for those interested from that perspective. In exceptional cases architects can be notable in terms of whom they work for, but in general they are notable for their actual architectural work. (where I usually encounter this is celebrity dentists and dermatologists, and here the entire articles are normally deleted. . We certainly should allow considerable latitude to non-coi editors in how they choose to emphasise an article, but it is inescapable that the purpose of a connected editor is to promote the firm in the terms in which the firm wants to be promoted.

But the place for this discussion is the article talk p., so the PR agent who wrote the article can try to defend it. I will copy the relevant parts of this this discussion there. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For purposes of the discussion, I would assume that User:Bauhaus2009, User:Manukyanr, User:64.81.40.181, User:Mramktg, and User:Amy at Marmol Radziner are all COI editors, based on their edits being largely limited to this subject. I will assume that their intent in so editing was indeed promotional, but not necessarily with an evasive or malicious purpose (the username "Amy at Marmol Radziner" suggests that at least that editor was not aware that such edits were problematic). As far as I can tell, only a few sentences remain from the last version edited by one of these editors.

As for my own efforts to improve the article, I have tried to stick to the sources diligently to provide accurate content likely to cover what readers searching for this article would want to find. Whether the sources are covering things that some might consider to be beneath notice or overly celebrity-obsessed, this is not "PR" in the sense of paid advertising disguised as article content. I have no reason to believe that the sources used most extensively for these parts of the article, Architectural Digest, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, are engaged in anything but independent reporting. Architectural Digest is a Condé Nast publication widely cited in Wikipedia, so I don't think it is considered a source of PR. Of course, all of these outlets have an interest in selling issues, so they do give outsized coverage celebrities, which ultimately is why Wikipedia faithfully reports, for example, every tryst engaged in by every member of the Kardashian clan. It think the coverage of architectural work here is well above that level of content. BD2412 T 02:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to be concerned at what I consider ecessive promotional content, including duplication between the list of project and the text, unnecessary and sometime duplicative name dropping, the apparent use of routine puffery as serious judgment. Another good editor whom I respect apparently sees it otherwise, and there's no point arguing about it indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)