Talk:Cundall (engineering consultancy)

Has this page been written like an advert?
In writing this article I have been careful to review pages for other such enginering consultancies, and follow a similar style and section layout, such as for: I apologise if I have made this page sound like an advert, but that was not my intent.
 * AECOM
 * Arup
 * Atkins Ltd
 * Buro Happold
 * Building Design Partnership
 * Gifford (company)
 * Halcrow Group Limited
 * Hoare Lea
 * Mott MacDonald
 * Parsons Brinckerhoff
 * Scott Wilson Group
 * WSP Group

I am currently researching further history and relevent facts for this company, and hope to improve the encyclopedic content soon. Pahazzard (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have just read the Conflict of interest guidance and just want to be sure that all is above board here: Pahazzard (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "COI editing is strongly discouraged.", Ah, maybe slightly too late with reading that advice! I do work for the company!
 * "COI editors causing disruption may be blocked."  I realy hope it does not come to that!
 * "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously."- well I am reading through all that now and will look to adhere to it to the letter.
 * "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing," yes again, I do work for this company
 * "and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested." I certainly welcome your views and opinions on the style of this article, and will do everything I can to keep it to encyclopedic content only.
 * "Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty." I do hope so! Seriously, I welcome your thoughts and comments


 * Hi Pahazzard
 * Thanks for disclosing your interest here. And as for your concern that "COI editors causing disruption may be blocked." might come to you, I, personally, can't see that happening (really some of the other pages I edit are pits of seething pits of resentment as edits are made/reverted/re-made/re-reverted and I think stopping that kind of thing maybe the aim of the policy).
 * It was I who tagged this as sounding like an advert, and it does to me, but with wikipedia things often change as other editors come along and reach a more rounded viewpoint, so it won't necessarily always stay like that
 * As I said to someone (in real life) before you posted, I would never have seen this if there wasn't a Newcastle link to disambiguate and that there could well be other similar article not flagged as being like an advert and it sounds as though you were actually following the lead of some!.
 * As other editors come along and work on this and as you add your more encyclopedic content things could well change and the tag be inappropriate
 * And, of course, a 3rd editor may revert my flagging anyhow
 * Icarusgeek (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to pahazzard for disclosing his COI, but we should not be encouraging him to "add [...] more encyclopedic content". We should be discouraging him from editing this article at all, as per the guidelines he himself quotes. He has not been disruptive, so there is no call for blocking him from editing all of Wikipedia at this point. However, in the creation of this article, he has turned out a paean to his employer. Before I took a scrape against it, the article started "Established in 1976,[1] Cundall’s fundamental vision is to provide professional and high quality engineering solutions to satisfy each client’s unique needs." Really, not what they did, pure meaning-free brochure copy. It was probably my mistake not calling for a speedy delete. As it is, it still reads like a brochure - here's our awards, here's our buildings! Plus he chose to reroute Cundall to this page. The only thing not sourced to the company's own website is award listings. This page should, at best, be stripped down to a stub and be there for someone unconflicted willing to build a real article on it; deletion would not be inappropriate. If Pahazzard has any further input on the page, it should be via the talk page, with his COI raised explicitly when he does so... and he should focus his article edits on being useful elsewhere, as he has done in the past. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cundall Johnston and Partners. 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/20131223114352/http://www.building-awards.com/2014-last-years-winners/ to http://www.building-awards.com/2014-last-years-winners/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513172510/http://www.wmcce.co.uk/awards/2012_legacy_award.html to http://www.wmcce.co.uk/awards/2012_legacy_award.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140513053849/http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/news/article.jsp?id=12926 to http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/news/article.jsp?id=12926
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219015720/http://sustainabilityawards.building.co.uk/winners/ to http://sustainabilityawards.building.co.uk/winners/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812023547/http://awards.acenet.co.uk/winners/497 to http://awards.acenet.co.uk/winners/497

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) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)