Talk:Faithful+Gould

Fair use rationale for Image:Faithful+Gould Logo.gif

Image:Faithful+Gould Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office locations and notability

The office location tables have been removed, with the reason being cited that the page's notability under question. References are needed to support statements made in the text, but the office locations tables have little to do with this. They are images from the company's website showing where each of the company's offices are in a graphical view. They are inserted as .jpgs. Supporting text in the tables are hyperlinks to the corresponding office web page (from the main Faithful+Gould site). In my opinion, the tables do not affect the article's notability and should be re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.110.94 (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text under notability questions has been removed, and office location tables reinserted. Article is in the process of being rewritten to address notability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shona isbister (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the office locations under the indiscriminate information policy, nothing to do with the notability of the company as a whole, and I still consider that they add little to the article.

Shona, I put something on your talk page yesterday about edits and notability that you may like to consider. regards TrulyBlue (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TrulyBlue;

I did get your message - thank you. The entire page is being developed, largely offline. There will be more content in the page, largely to reflect the company's projects - such as the Al Arab in Dubai - which are of relevance to the article. The office locations section should therefore fit into the page as a whole once the page is complete - hopefully you will consider the same:)

It just happened that I made the tables first...I appreciate your point to view, however, and will take your recommendations into account when completing the article. As a wiki, I understand that it is meant to be updated and built upon as an ongoing process? Or should I have developed the article in the sandbox first?

Once again thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shona isbister (talk • contribs) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shona. I don't think there's a standard for how to go about developing an article - sandbox or 'live' - except that it's not a good idea to create a visible embyonic article that doesn't show what you're working towards: you get people like me querying the validity of the article and distracting you from progress. There's an article on Article development that may be handy for you, also the Manual of Style. Have fun!

Oh, and by the way, you may like to add "~~~~" after your comments on here - they get translated into your signature. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the office location maps back up but just one thing to note; the San Diego office has recently closed down and transfered operations to Los Angeles and San Francisco offices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.78.250 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful + Gould to provide project management for big Solar Tower project

EnviroMission, a solar tower renewable energy developer, plans to build a carbon-free 200 Megawatt Solar Tower in Arizona, with Faithful + Gould providing some Engineering, Procurement, Construction services, i.e., project management and "integrated commercial services," according to a June 9, 2011 announcement by Enviromission. Environmission has a power purchase agreement for the tower project with the Southern California Public Power Authority. The tower system uses air temperature differentials and, unlike existing concentrated solar power systems, heating water in a tower and using the steam to drive turbines and generators, no water is used in the Enviromission model, for a near-zero-emission concept. DonL (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

Hi

In accordance with the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I confirm that I work for Faithful+Gould. I would like to work with you wherever possible to correctly summarise, inform and reference material that is relevant to our entry. In this instance I’d like to highlight information on the page that is currently inaccurate.

The statement I refer to relates to an assertion that Faithful+Gould was responsible for the errors that led to the collapse of the West Coast Mainline franchise competition. This is incorrect and I refer you to section 6 of the Laidlaw Inquiry which was laid before Parliament on 6 December 2012. The report author wrote: “I make no criticism of Atkins’ [and therefore Faithful+Gould’s] conduct”.

Thanks

--Gowawiki (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the statement to remove any suggestion that F+G had any responsiblity for the loss of £40m. However you cannot deny that the minister did disclose in Parliament that it was F+G who had been responsible for the franchise design. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]