This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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.
