Talk:ANZCO Foods

Revert

Kia ora Ryan, welcome to the unforgiving world that is Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I've had to revert your six edits in their entirety. I suggest that we have a discussion where to go from here.

First up, let me acknowledge my appreciation of you declaring your conflict of interest (COI) before you even started editing this article. I further acknowledge that you edit under your real name (and can see your ANZCO employment on LinkedIn) and that sets you apart from the "usual COI editor" who tries to hide their conflict and their identity. Top marks. I further see that you are new to Wikipedia and as such, it is entirely inevitable that you'll run into trouble making bold edits. That's because there are a million rules that you'll trip over. I'm more than willing to provide some guidance and turn you into a great editor, if you wish (and I don't care much about COI as long as people are open about it and keep their edits neutral). That said, the best way to not run into trouble at all with COI is to make suggestions on the talk page, and let other editors deal with amendments to the article in question.

Right, let me go through your edits and point out why they were problematic:

• File:ANZCO Foods logo.svg – uploading the logo has been done in accordance with the rules – well done! Hence this edit is all good. I shall restore the logo.
• File:ANZCO Foods CEO Peter Conley.jpg – did you really take that photo? Are you sure? Metadata show that it was taken in December 2019 but you started with ANZCO in January 2020. Could it be that you simply helped yourself to this photo from this article? Your second edit didn't just add a photo to which you probably don't hold the rights, but you also removed the video clip with the drone footage. I can understand that your superiors would want to see that video removed but you will not find a rule anywhere that would support that removal. Sorry.
• Your third edit removed references with the rationale "removed links to articles unrelated to Land holdings". I can understand your thinking (those links have little to do with the topic) and motivation (they are bad news stories for the company) but the reason for having those references is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies: content needs to be verifiable. The references confirm that ANZCO owns those places, hence they are needed. We can always replace those references with something better.
• Your fourth edit is rather problematic. You did a cull of a lot of content that makes the article encyclopaedic, and added unreferenced content about the company's brands. With reference to verifiability above, that's a no-no. Sure, it would be good to have the latest turnover and employment figures, but not without a reference.
• With regards to your fifth edit, what was wrong with the company history as it had been written? You've simply culled it. Why?
• And with your last edit, you've added some of the info back but it's now unreferenced.

So where do we go from here? I'll add the logo back in and the link to the company website. I suggest that you make suggestions on this talk page and provide references that back any suggested amendments. How does that sound? Schwede66 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Wakanui
• ANZCO Foods

)

Wakanui feedlot drone footage

• ... that although the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O'Connor, states that "the image of pastoral farming is the one New Zealand promotes", he is unconcerned about the ANZCO Foods feedlot at Wakanui (video)?

Source: "Minister of Agriculture Damien O'Connor also launched a scathing attack, saying New Zealand would be crippled if it listened to everything SAFE said. ... 'Clearly the image of pastoral farming is the one New Zealand promotes and it is the mainstay of our industry.' "Radio New Zealand

• Reviewed: Seattle Center Monorail & Troy Collings
• Comment: It's not often that you have a good and interesting video with a new article but I got lucky and got my hands onto some drone footage. Very impressive and so not-New Zealand. I wasn't sure whether to use "(pictured)" when a video is used; please tweak it if I've got it wrong.

Created by Schwede66 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

• I've just written an article for the company that owns the feedlot and have added that to this nomination. Schwede66 23:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal unless it is amended for balance. It should more fairly quote the source and say ALT1: ... that although the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O'Connor, says "the image of pastoral farming is the one New Zealand promotes ... we are open to innovative ways to produce good quality beef", and the ANZCO Foods feedlot at Wakanui "is one of them"?

That's less tabloidy than a minister being "unconcerned" about a feedlot. The source does not say he is unconcerned. Moriori (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(←) This has stalled, and the hook is somewhat awkward at the moment. @Schwede66: Would you be amenable to preparing two DYKs, one for each article? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: thanks for your note. I'm not sure that I call this "stalled"; it's simply that nobody has reviewed this yet (the editor who commented is a fellow New Zealander, knows of the situation, and all he may have read is the hook; we don't know whether he's even looked at the two articles). It's ultimately up to the reviewer to judge, based on the sources provided, whether or not the hook as suggested by me is appropriate. When you say that "the hook is somewhat awkward at the moment", I assume that you refer to ALT1; I share that concern. ALT1 is also outside of the size limit for hooks. This is a double nomination as the topics belong together and no, I would not be interested in splitting this into two separate nominations; I also cannot see the point that such a split would achieve. With regards to the Minister of Agriculture's attitude, this is best explored in the article written by The Spinoff. Schwede66 21:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• These two articles are new enough and long enough. The video clip is appropriately licensed and would be good on the main page. The hook facts are cited inline, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Two QPQs have been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)