Talk:Faithful+Gould

Fair use rationale for Image:Faithful+Gould Logo.gif

Image:Faithful+Gould Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Office locations and notability

The office location tables have been removed, with the reason being cited that the page's notability under question. References are needed to support statements made in the text, but the office locations tables have little to do with this. They are images from the company's website showing where each of the company's offices are in a graphical view. They are inserted as .jpgs. Supporting text in the tables are hyperlinks to the corresponding office web page (from the main Faithful+Gould site). In my opinion, the tables do not affect the article's notability and should be re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.110.94 (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Text under notability questions has been removed, and office location tables reinserted. Article is in the process of being rewritten to address notability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shona isbister (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the office locations under the indiscriminate information policy, nothing to do with the notability of the company as a whole, and I still consider that they add little to the article.

Shona, I put something on your talk page yesterday about edits and notability that you may like to consider. regards TrulyBlue (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TrulyBlue;

I did get your message - thank you. The entire page is being developed, largely offline. There will be more content in the page, largely to reflect the company's projects - such as the Al Arab in Dubai - which are of relevance to the article. The office locations section should therefore fit into the page as a whole once the page is complete - hopefully you will consider the same:)

It just happened that I made the tables first...I appreciate your point to view, however, and will take your recommendations into account when completing the article. As a wiki, I understand that it is meant to be updated and built upon as an ongoing process? Or should I have developed the article in the sandbox first?

Once again thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shona isbister (talk • contribs) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shona. I don't think there's a standard for how to go about developing an article - sandbox or 'live' - except that it's not a good idea to create a visible embyonic article that doesn't show what you're working towards: you get people like me querying the validity of the article and distracting you from progress. There's an article on Article development that may be handy for you, also the Manual of Style. Have fun!

Oh, and by the way, you may like to add "~~~~" after your comments on here - they get translated into your signature. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see the office location maps back up but just one thing to note; the San Diego office has recently closed down and transfered operations to Los Angeles and San Francisco offices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.78.250 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Faithful + Gould to provide project management for big Solar Tower project

EnviroMission, a solar tower renewable energy developer, plans to build a carbon-free 200 Megawatt Solar Tower in Arizona, with Faithful + Gould providing some Engineering, Procurement, Construction services, i.e., project management and "integrated commercial services," according to a June 9, 2011 announcement by Enviromission. Environmission has a power purchase agreement for the tower project with the Southern California Public Power Authority. The tower system uses air temperature differentials and, unlike existing concentrated solar power systems, heating water in a tower and using the steam to drive turbines and generators, no water is used in the Enviromission model, for a near-zero-emission concept. DonL (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dormskirk (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)== History ==

Hi

In accordance with the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I confirm that I work for Faithful+Gould. I would like to work with you wherever possible to correctly summarise, inform and reference material that is relevant to our entry. In this instance I’d like to highlight information on the page that is currently inaccurate.

The statement I refer to relates to an assertion that Faithful+Gould was responsible for the errors that led to the collapse of the West Coast Mainline franchise competition. This is incorrect and I refer you to section 6 of the Laidlaw Inquiry which was laid before Parliament on 6 December 2012. The report author wrote: “I make no criticism of Atkins’ [and therefore Faithful+Gould’s] conduct”.

Thanks

--Gowawiki (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the statement to remove any suggestion that F+G had any responsiblity for the loss of £40m. However you cannot deny that the minister did disclose in Parliament that it was F+G who had been responsible for the franchise design. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I would like to inform you about a new business focus for Faithful+Gould.

Consequently I propose an update to the introductory paragraph as follows: ‘Faithful+Gould is an integrated project and programme management consultancy. It supports clients with the management of their construction projects and programmes. It is part of Atkins – a design, engineering and project management consultancy.’

The industry field should also be updated: ’Project and programme management.’

Separately, I would like to call into question the relevancy and significance of the statement attributed to Simon Burns. I again refer you to section 6 of the Laidlaw Inquiry, which was laid before Parliament on 6 December 2012, within which the author stated: “I make no criticism of Atkins’ [and therefore Faithful+Gould’s] conduct”. I also draw your attention to the Wiki pages of the other external advisors and note their roles have not been similarly highlighted.

See below for a list of Faithful+Gould’s historical milestones:

1947 - Eric Faithful and Leonard Gould first formed their partnership in the UK in 1947 as they helped repair Bristol after it was heavily bombed in the Second World War.

1967 – It worked with Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) to provide cost valuation and management services on all ICI sites in the UK – leading to more growth and further office openings.

1975 – It was involved in multiple projects including the Selby coal pit.

1983 – It won a contract with British Nuclear fuels (BNFL) at Thorpe for a fuel re-processing plant – at the time the biggest construction project in Europe.

1990s – It made acquisitions of Silk & Frazier and Yeoman & Edwards.

1996 – It joined the Atkins Group, a design, engineering and project management consultancy.

2002 – It then purchased Hanscomb in 2002, which provided a springboard into the American market.

2013 – It acquired Confluence in a strategic deal to further strengthen its footprint in Asia Pacific and to increase its project management expertise.

Thanks

Gowawiki (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi - As requested, I have updated the introductory paragraph. However I have been unable to update the pieces on Bristol, ICI, Selby or BNFL as you did not provide independent sources as required by WP:SOURCE. I have included the piece on Confluence (I found a good independent source myself) and I have included the response from the Laidlaw Inquiry to provide balance to the comment on the collapse of the West Coast Mainline franchise competition. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for making those updates and sourcing the Confluence reference. I have managed to source an independent reference for the below historical moments and so hopefully you would now be willing to apply them. I still feel that given the LaidLaw enquiry made no criticism at all of Faithful+Gould it seems somewhat unbalanced to include that as a key moment in the company’s history and so perhaps you would still be willing to consider removing this at some point.

1947 - Eric Faithful and Leonard Gould first formed their partnership in the UK in 1947 as they [repair Bristol after it was heavily bombed] in the Second World War.[1,2]

1967 – It worked with [Chemical Industries (ICI)] to provide cost valuation and management services on all ICI sites in the UK – leading to more growth and further office openings.[1,2]

1975 – It was involved in multiple projects including the [coal pit].[1,2]

[1] “QS Brand Names”. Building Magazine. 24 February 2006. Retrieved 3 September 2014

[2] “Brownhills to Benelux carrying express profits T1 TRANSPORT”. M2MEvolution. 1 December 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2014

Gowawiki (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi - As requested I have added the bits on Bristol, ICI and Selby. The piece on the Laidlaw inquiry seems balanced to me. It makes clear (i) that F+G was involed in this fiasco (which did not reflect well on any of the parties) and (ii) that LaidLaw made no criticism of F+G. I did not add this piece to the article but agree with the editor that drafted it that this is the sort of thing that should be covered by wikipedia articles. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faithful+Gould. 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/20140813033808/http://www.rttnews.com/2198337/atkins-buys-confluence-project-management-business-quick-facts.aspx to http://www.rttnews.com/2198337/atkins-buys-confluence-project-management-business-quick-facts.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)