Talk:ECourier

Quality Standards
Hi, I have been working with Thing to try and reform this article to meet quality standards. Please see discussion here here. I tried to post this re-worked version taking into account the articles which were mentioned. I believe that although the subject of this article is a company, it is noteworthy (beacuse of coverage in secondary sources like FT, Economist, The Times, Release 1.0, etc) and the article is written to be completely objective will all facts referenced by reliable secondary sources. If I haven't lived up to either of these criteria please give me a little help on how to do this as I believe an article on this company is an important contribution to wikipedia. Thanks!Travisb4279 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On Peacocks ...
I have removed a flock of peacocks. Springnuts (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

... which were promptly reverted. The article had massive issues of peacockery and author COI. I edited it to a more NPOV form, explaining each revision in an edit summary (see this diff: []). Rather than an IP address with clear COI issues - see this: [] - simply reverting as here [] and here [] (in each case without even an edit summary), could I please suggest debating any perceived issues here first. Springnuts (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving this Article
Hi, I've been trying to edit this article for a few months and thought I had written a pretty good article.

I think the company is notable and interesting, evidenced by the fact that it's been featured in reliable third party sources (Economist, FT) and has supporters that include OR Experts (Cindy Barnhart is now the Associate Dean of Engineering at MIT and Esther Dyson is as Internet as it gets). In October, the article was tagged for deletion, and I worked with an admin to re-write the article to meet quality and NPOV standards. I am slightly frustrated by the fact that another admin has now come along and tagged the article for deletion notwithstanding the work I have put in to develop the article. I appreciate your help but I respectfully believe that some of the "de-peacocking" of the article has taken away content and facts about the company that is important for those trying to understand what makes it notable.

1) In the new revision the company is described as a "courier service". I do not believe this is an accurate description, or at least it is only part of the story. They are a courier service in the same way that Google is a website. The entire point of the company, it seems to me, is to be an IT platform / Internet Business with a courier company as a wrapper. This is the point made in one of the sources I cited--an article by Esther Dyson in Release 1.0. It is echoed by the recent article in Computing (the largest UK Technology weekly) by one of the founders who describes it as an "Internet service business" . But all in all I think this is a decision the reader should make and it should perhaps be given treatment in the article?

2) Because the article has been redacted, in particular the description of the constraints of same day delivery (e.g. "hereby clients place orders with little or no advance notice requesting immediate transport of articles or documents") it is hard to see what is unique about the technology they have developed or why they are working with Operational Research academics to try and solve the problem. I think it is also useful to the reader to give a more in-depth view of how their software works--as it is this which primarily makes the company notable.

3) There was a section on brand I believe is also important to the notability of the company and its operation. The picture is the most recognisable "front end" of the company so will help the reader conceptualise this. Compare here the discussion of "operating units and logos" in the FedEx article which includes pictures of their branded vehicles and planes.

4) I don't know the Wikipedia policy on this but the sources section included Reliable sources not directly referenced in the article which were used in drawing it up and might be useful for readers wanting to get quality further information. None of the links point back to the company itself.

I would really appreciate if we could work together to improve the quality of the article--looking forward to your thoughts on the above. Travisb4279 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

- - -


 * Hi Travisb4279,


 * You make some interesting points which illustrate the problems of WP:COI (and also WP:AUTO) - I assume that you are closely involved with the company, since almost all your edits are to this article and the article about one of the company's founders. If I am wrong I apologise, though that probably makes the article a form of WP:FAN.  Some of the material you want to include might be well located in the Courier article.  I agree that the company is Notable in Wiki terms - but that is not a licence to include a great deal of peacockery - which looked so like puffery that I was at first astonished that such an article had not been deleted - though it was deleted (several times?) under a very slightly different name.


 * To be brutally honest, the best way forward is to leave editing the article to people without a personal (conflict of) interest, intervening only to correct errors. That wil leave you free to devote your undoubted talents in article editing to improving the encyclopaedia elsewhere.  Sorry that is not what you wanted to hear!  Regards,  Springnuts (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can confirm I don't have a conflict of interest and I wouldn't really consider myself a "fan" of the company, I just find the subject matter interesting and have been following entrepreneurial events and companies in London. I understand your concern, but I think a lot of quality pages on Wikipedia are started / improved by people with an interest in the topic (why else get involved?) who can be dispassionate about it. I was also editing an article about one of the founders which I see is redirected--but I think that is deserving of its own page too. The example I am using as a baseline is James_Murray_Wells linked off the Glasses Direct article. Could you let me know how I can improve this as well or what the distinction is in your view? Would be happy to post edits for your review on both counts. I will have a think about a few technology lines.Travisb4279 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Those were good edits, including removal of the portraits of the founders, which was among the most objectionable content. Travis, we might well want to include something about the technology,and the way to do it is to propose a sentence or two about it here on the talk page, for the uninvolved editors to look at, as recommended at our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations) DGG (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is the standard I believe someone should edit the Innocent Drinks article which profiles the story of the company and includes pictures of the founders? Again I am just trying to figure out what the appropriate content should be so appreciate your input.Travisb4279 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From quick glance it appears as if it has A LOT of different editors, which wasn't the case here. These articles was built primarily by one person (you) and you have COI issue. The more editors, specifically without COI the better the article becomes (and larger). I wouldn't say it would be impossible to add the images of the founders, they are relevant, you might want to add them to Commons with appropriate free licensing so later they could be incorporated into this article. When it comes to COI and NPOV we have to be careful. — raeky ( talk 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From a more detailed look it was a huge advertisement for the company, so I whittled it down to a more appropriate encyclopedic entry, removed TONS of advertisement like content. Theres probably plenty of small company pages like that that are basicly verbatim copies of their promotional flyers. — raeky ( talk 17:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The articles about the company founders have been turned into redirects to here; brief details of their recognition have been added to the article. Springnuts (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For additional info, discussion on the redirect decision please refer to the following talk page: Talk:Tom Allason — raeky ( talk 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
These decisions are approaching consensus any substantal changes to this article or the founders redirect pages SHOULD be discussed here, otherwise it will likely be considered vandalism. These pages have been having an issue with NPOV and Autobiographical edits. — raeky ( talk 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Allason
Travisb4279 seems to be Tom Allason or his friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.89.37 (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His COI is addressed in the topic right above the one you just made.... and is the primary reason the article was DRASTICALLY cut down of content and size. — raeky ( talk 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 86.24.47.137 seems to be a sock-puppet of Bregman or Allason.
 * I am not sure that Allason still works for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.156.220 (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The style in the website of ecourier is American, suggesting that it is not by Allason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.92.91 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom Allason seems to have left ecourier in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.37.42 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecourier. 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/20100416091341/http://www.deloitte.co.uk/fast50/winners/winners-list-2009/ to http://www.deloitte.co.uk/fast50/winners/winners-list-2009/

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) 00:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)