Talk:Wildlife and Countryside Link

Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible COI

This article has been extensively edited by Wildlife and Countryside Link (talk · contribs), Wildlife89 (talk · contribs) and 62.49.55.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP geolocates to "Wildlife & Countryside Link" in London. I suggest that these users may have a conflict of interest. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the editors are closely linked to the organisation, but I can't see a COI: it's not a commercial organisation, and neither is it open to membership by members of the public, so there's little to be gained (either financially or in the furtherance of organisational aims) by promotion on Wiki. You might guess from my username that I work in the conservation sector, but I'm not involved in any way with W&CL. This is an organisation of national significance within our sector, and I visited this page to find out more information: I was pleased to see that an article existed, and I found it concise and well-written and feel it has a neutral POV. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing, but if anyone would like to highlight any specific concerns they have about POV issues I'm happy to work on them! As it stands, other than lack of independent references, I'm struggling to see a problem with this article. PondBob (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]