Talk:Instacart
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Source
Worker mistreatment and coercion: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-15/instacart-hounds-workers-to-take-jobs-that-aren-t-worth-it?srnd=premium - Mainly 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Tech Company?
This article reads like a company handout, and starts with the unfortunately commonplace assertion that Instacart is a tech company. It's the same assertion that WeWork has made when it is simply a real estate company. The same seems true of Instacart: it's a delivery business that uses technology (but what doesn't these days?) to facilitate ordering. The rest of the article does little more than trumpet the company's expansion. It needs serous editing. Josephlestrange (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"shoppers" ?
This article uses the term shoppers for Instacart's workers. --ZenGaadida (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Undisclosed payments
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (September 2020) |
This article has been edited by a large number of different editors and has undergone an ‘overhaul’ since the flag was placed. Even if there have been paid contribs on this page in its past, its likely not the majority of the current state of the page. No sense in having this on the main page, adding to the noise and clutter across Wikipedia. Makes more sense to discuss any concenring edits here. 142.105.49.206 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: I'm adding to this discussion because, as another user above has brought to light, this article has been edited by 73 different users. Even you (Super Goku V) are within the top 5 of the 'Top 10 by added text' - not implying anything, just something to think about. Per Template:Undisclosed paid, the UDP tag is for articles for which there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor. When placing this tag, please also tag the article talk page with {{Connected contributor (paid)}}.
Are we claiming there has been significant contribution by a paid editor? I don't see the tag on the talk page to identify which editor's contributions we should be concerned with.
Discussing the actual content of the article is important as you've stated, so I'm starting with my observations below using WP:CONPOL as a guide and encourage others to participate:
WP:CONPOL:
- Article Titles: No issue
- Biographies of living persons: N/A
- Image use policy: N/A
- Neutral point of view: I don't see anything overly promotional. Appears to be mostly about expansion over the years. Some areas could be rewritten more to-the-point (ie. 'alcohol delivery service include over 30 new partners in more than 20 states' could be rewritten to '32 new partners in 21 states' or whatever the actual #s may be). If anything, the most concerning area in regard to NPOV is the large Controversy section WP:CSECTION. Are we concerned that paid editors were involved in this section? This is where identifying the users would be helpful.
- No original research: This doesn't seem to be an issue, except maybe needing additional sources for the "In 2018.. national expansions with.." line.
- Verifiability: Doesn't appear to be an issue. Appropriate sections have already been flagged as needing additional citations or third-party source, but these are pretty minor.
- What Wikipedia is not: This is probably the most important one to discuss. These types of articles can easily lean towards advertisement even with GF edits. As stated above, I'm not seeing anything overly promotional, but other editors need to weigh in here.
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary: N/A
With all that said, I don't see any reason to keep the UDP tag on the page given that there is no single editor that has significantly contributed to the article, nor is there concerning content upon review, in my opinion. The disclosure should definitely be included and kept on the talk page as is standard for any closely connected contributors. 76.79.68.66 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject Apps
- Start-Class apps articles
- Unknown-importance apps articles
- WikiProject Apps articles
- Start-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- Start-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- Start-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- Start-Class company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Start-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles