 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
COI edit
Articles that are unavailable online are obtained from the company. Also, the article implies all "shopper dockets" as coupons owned by the company. In my opinion, it is written in a non neutral manner Wikilover2604 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are plenty of databases that give access to content written before most online newspaper websites kick in in Australia (around 1999), and it's the only way one can source that material. It is absolutely ludicrous to assume that anyone who wants to reference content from before 1999 has "obtained it from the company" without any evidence: the allegation of paid editing (and to be explicitly clear, I am not the author) without any evidence whatsoever is a violation of WP:NPA.
- The article concerns Australia, where all "shopper dockets" (to my knowledge) are coupons owned by the company, the author has referenced this to national media coverage, and this is the only example you give of a supposed "non neutral manner". You need to do better than this: a fairly new user writes a neutral, well-written article with 23 correctly-cited reliable sources, and they deserve better than a newbie-biting editor making lazy assumptions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The company has been looking to hire paid editors for the page on guru.com. A little bit of search on three websites gives me the link. It is not allowing me to paste the link here. Also I feel the author has missed out a very important section if infact this article is neutral. There is no mention regarding the Competition Commission's investigation into the coupons issued by the company. This is just one article (http://economicstudents.com/2014/04/time-for-the-accc-to-declare-victory-in-the-shopper-dockets-war/). If one were to google, more than 20 come up. I apologise if my comments seemed like I was attacking a senior editor. That was not my intention Wikilover2604 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- It would have been wise to note that (about finding an ad on guru.com) initially - because there's not actually anything obviously wrong with the article, as an experienced Australian editor familiar with the subject. If there's anything you feel should be added, feel free to do so. However, a) economicstudents.com is not a reliable source, and b) the subject is not even referenced in that article, or any others that I can find. The articles you are referring to concern action against Coles and Woolworths over their fuel discounts, not about the Shop A Docket coupons on the back. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)